See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273696371

Important design aspects of the Railway Tunnel T-74R

Conference Paper · June 2013

DOI: 10.1201/b14769-130

CITATIONS READS

0 1,999

3 authors, including:

Giampiero Carrieri
Geodata Engineering Spa
9 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

JAmmu - Srinagar New railway View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giampiero Carrieri on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 
 
 
 
World Tunnel Congress 2013 Geneva
Underground – the way to the future!
  G. Anagnostou & H. Ehrbar (eds)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Important design aspects of the Railway Tunnel T-74R
G. Carrieri(1), A. Poli(1) and L. Repetto(1)
(1)
GEODATA Engineering S.p.A, Turin, Italy

ABSTRACT: The Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL) Project, among the most important
infrastructure projects in India, will connect the Kashmir valley to the national transportation network. The T-74R
Tunnel lays along the Udhampur-Qazigund section, which features the most complex geology in the USBRL.
Having encountered severe difficulties during excavation of T-67, T-68, T-73 and T-74 tunnels (rock masses with
poor geomechanical properties, related to landslides and fault zones) a new long and deep tunnel was proposed:
the T-74R (L=8.6 km). In order to select the general tunnel layout, a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) has been
applied and four alternative solutions (all with an intermediate adit) were investigated: 1) and 2) single tube -
single track (with and without motorable escape way); 3) single tube - single track plus a parallel escape tunnel; 4)
twin tube - single track. Taking into account construction and safety aspects as along with construction costs, the
MCA results have shown the single tube - single track tunnel with a parallel escape tunnel is the best option. The
construction of this tunnel started in the beginning of 2012. This paper describes the process of selecting the
tunnel cross section and layout, the design criteria and the main characteristics of the T-74R tunnel, highlighting
the typical sections of primary support to be applied along the whole tunnel.

1 Introduction
The T-74R tunnel has been proposed to replace the old T-74 alignment. The reason for putting the
new T-74R on a deeper alignment is to avoid the severe geological conditions encountered during
excavation of the shallow T-67/T-68 and T-73/T-74 tunnels. The T-74R tunnel has a length of 8.6km
and by-passes from the km 134 to the km 145 of the old alignment. The new tunnel will be excavated
between the right side of the Bishlari river valley (roughly 5 km downstream and southward of Banihal)
and the last 5 km of the left hillside of its tributary, the valley of the Mahumangat Nalla.

Figure 1. Left - Plan view of India and Jammu & Kashmir region; Right - plan view of New T-74R tunnel

-1-
2 Geological aspects

2.1 General features

The T-74R crosses the rock masses belonging to Ramsu Formation and, in the northernmost sector of
the alignment, those referred to Machal Formation. These formations belong to the so-called “Tethyan
Zone”, the metamorphosed sedimentary cover of the High Himalayan crystalline (HHC) base. Both
Ramsu (pyritiferous slate, carbonaceous shale, crystalline limestone, pebbly phyllite and basic
intrusive) and Machal Formations include predominant phyllites and slate, but they differ for the higher
presence of interlayered quarzites and schists and marbles in the Ramsu formation and for the minor
occurrence of quartzite and agglomeratic tuffs in the Machal formation. The rocks belonging to the
Ramsu and Machal Formation have undergone a complex history of burying and following
exhumation, and have been subjected to huge stresses in either ductile or fragile conditions. Taking
into account the available collected data the following lithotypes are mostly expected at the tunnel
level: 1) Phyllites; 2) Quartzitic Phyllites; 3) Micacoeus Quartzite / Metaconglomerates.

Figure 2. Left - Phyllites with soil levels, weathered and loosened; Right - Quartzitic Phyllites, scarp in
phyllites on the 3a curve of road to Ladnatop, very tectonized, weathered and affected by certain small
(dm) fault/shear zone, main foliation slightly undulating. Tables for determination of GSI (Russo 2007)
3
depending on Block Volume (Vb in cm ) and Joint Condition Factor (jC) of Palmstrom
The Project area is marked by a significant and fast geomorphologic re-modelling of the landscape.
Due to the still high up-lifting rate (nearly 10 mm/year) of the Himalayan range, slope instability
phenomena are very common, such as deep landslides (Deep Seated Slope Instability type, DSSI) or
shallow but faster debris flows/avalanche or rock falls (some of these as superficial evidences of the
DSSI, some others as specific slope instability phenomena). Notably, there are three main slope
instability phenomena in the T-74R area:
• Naidmal Landslide: this is the biggest landslide of the Project area and affects the left hillside
sector of the Mahu Mangat Nala valley; for its whole height of around 1300m and for a width of
more than 3000m starting, roughly, from the existing T-67.
• Manjosh Landslide: this landslide presents roughly the same features of the Naidmal
Landslide (semi-circular shaped crown, ridge splitting, probably also, even if in a lesser way,
stream deviation) on a smaller scale: both width and height are roughly 1km. The gently
dipping slope in correspondence to Manjosh village represents the head of the landslide’s
main body just below the main scarp.

-2-
 • Ladna Landslide: the third landslide, differently from the previous two, affects the right hillside
of the Bishlari river valley just before the confluence with the Mahu Mangat Nala; it should
affect the tunnel excavation at least from the Nala in correspondence of which the existing
T-73N and T-74S portals are located.

T74

T67

T-74R

Figure 3. Landslides localization

2.2 Geomechanical characterization of rock mass

The different rock masses included in the project are analyzed considering their overall geo-structural
features, as well as their singular components (intact rock, discontinuities). Variability and residual
uncertainties of geotechnical properties are analyzed both with statistical methods and deterministic
approaches. The resulting characterization is the base of the process of geomechanical classification
of rock masses by fabric and quality indexes. A summary of GSI groups and uniaxial compressive
strength (C0) for the different lithologies expected along the T-74R tunnel is presented in the following
Table 1. Results from the process of in-situ geostructural data, collected along the project site, are
analysed according to Hoek & Marinos’s GSI chart (2000) and no. 4 GSI groups are identified:
Table 1. GSI groups and uniaxial compressive strength (C0) values for the different lithologies

Phyllite Quartzite – Phyllite Micacoeus Quartzite / Metaconglomerates

GSI GSI C0 GSI C0 GSI GSI C0
groups range [MPa] range [MPa] groups range [MPa]
1_GSI GSI>65
2_GSI 45<GSI<65 50÷100 45<GSI<65 50÷150 50÷150
2_GSI 45<GSI<65
3_GSI 25<GSI<45 25÷50 25<GSI<45 25÷50 3_GSI 25<GSI<45 25÷50
4_GSI GSI<25 <25 GSI<25 <25 4_GSI GSI<25 <25

The following percentages of the application of GSI groups are foreseen along the new T-74R tunnel:
1_GSI (1.3%); 2_GSI (38.9%); 3_GSI (51.2%); 4_GSI (8.6%).

3 The selection of the T-74R layout

3.1 Safety Aspects

Planning and design of railway tunnels have addressed increasing attention towards the safety issues
in the recent years. Notably, in cases with combination of high speed, mixed goods/passenger traffic
and long tunnels, the systematic planning of safety measures has become one major element of the
tunnel design. Internationally, some domains of rail technology are quite standardized and well
established with respect to safety (e.g. safety standards for track alignment, switch control, etc.).
However, safety and incidents management in underground rail systems are addressed in a number
of different ways in different countries of the world. In the most recent projects, a mix of different
approaches to design rail tunnel safety is taken: a) legislative approach by norms, standards and

-3-
regulations; b) functional approach, e.g. by quantitative risk analysis; c) reference approach by
achieving "state-of-the-art" systems; d) safety principles like "fair-chance of escape for passengers".
As at today, no specific safety methodology is internationally recognized, whereas various alternative
approaches are recommended. In any approach, a mix of different elements is taken into account.
Safety planning means to create a set of measures which has to be agreed upon with the safety
authorities. In this case, a mixed approach giving a very high weight to safety aspects but also
considering construction and economical aspects has been adopted for the selection of the T-74R
layout. The ideal tool for this kind of analysis is the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) method, described in
the following paragraph.

3.2 Multi criteria analysis (MCA)

Four possible solutions have been compared: 1) Solution A: Single tube–Single track tunnel including
pedestrian escape way with one intermediate adit; 2) Solution B: Single tube–Single track tunnel
including motorable escape way with one intermediate adit; 3) Solution C: Single tube–Single track
tunnel including pedestrian escape way with safety parallel escape tunnel with one intermediate adit;
4) Solution D: Double tube–Single track tunnels including pedestrian escape way with intermediate
adit. The four alternative solutions have been compared in terms of the following criteria: a)
construction aspects; b) safety and c) economical aspects. In this comparison, the railway system
aspects (availability of tunnel system, capacity of trains, flexibility in operation and possibility of future
expansion) have not been considered because there is no need to go for twin track in future. The four
proposed solutions are recapped in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary and comparison of possible T-74R Layouts

Scheme of tunnel system Reference cross section Elements

Solution A

Single-tube,
Single-track

2
Area=38.2m
Solution B

Single-tube,
Single-track,
Motorable way
2
Area=51.8m
Solution C

Single-tube,
Single-track,
Separate escape sidewalk
2 2
Area=38.2m Area=18.5m
Solution D

Double tube,
Single track
2 2
Area=38.2m Area=38.2m

All solutions are similar in terms of construction time. As a matter of fact, all solutions foresee one adit
which will greatly help in having a greater number of excavation faces and ultimately save construction
time. Solutions C and D require double excavation faces and for this reason may be subjected to
heavier logistic problems. Generally speaking, staged excavation (top heading and benching) is less
practicable when dealing with small excavation sizes, whereas full-face excavation would require
equipments able to work up to 10m height. Hence, staged excavation may be conveniently applied to
the bigger section (solution B) whereas full-face advancement is recommended for solutions A, C and
D. With regards to safety during construction, solutions C and D are preferable to the single bore
solution since the availability of a parallel tube for Solutions C and D gives more flexibility to manage
the overall excavation process and therefore contributes to a higher level of safety during construction.

-4-
As a matter of fact, escape ways are located only at the portals and adit (which is halfway through -
approx. 3500m) for the single-bore layout (Solutions A and B), while with the twin-bore solutions
escape ways (cross passages) are located at every 500m or less with. Solution B allows easier
access of rescue vehicles and teams if compared to Solution A. In any case, this aspect may be
regarded of secondary importance as the most critical moment for the passengers’ safety in case of
accidents lies within the very first few minutes after the event, when the rescue teams are yet to reach
the place. The main results of the MCA are reported in Table 3. Based on this MCA, the solution C
has been chosen.
Table 3. MCA results to comparing four possible T-74R layouts

Solution
Criterion Weight
A B C D
a) Construction 33.3%
1 b) Safety 33.3% 16.0 17.8 19.1 18.2
c) Economical elements 33.3%
a) Construction 50.0%
2 b) Safety 25.0% 16.5 17.1 18.9 18.7
c) Economical elements 25.0%
a) Construction 25.0%
3 b) Safety 50.0% 14.5 17.2 21.0 21.6
c) Economical elements 25.0%
a) Construction 25.0%
4 b) Safety 25.0% 17.0 17.1 17.6 16.4
c) Economical elements 50.0%

3.3 Main Characteristics of T-74R layout and alignment

The solution C (reported in Table 2) has the following main characteristics:
• Main Tunnel length~8610 m (from T-67 South portal: P1, CH 125+313.11 to T-74 North portal:
P2, CH 133+901.43 equivalent to the old CH 145+683); Finished Cross section: 38.2 m2;
finished cross section (existing T-67): 48.0 m2; excavated cross section: from 58 m2 to 73 m2.
Maximum gradient: 1.25% compensated. Design Speed of 100 km/hour. Minimum curvature
radius: 445 m.
• Maintenance niche (MN): No.33, at 250 m intervals. Trolley refuge niche (TR): No.83, at 100
m intervals; size 3.40 x 3.45 x 3.40 m; for visibility reasons Trolley refuges will be located
always on the external side of the curves.
• Safety and Escape Tunnel length~7407 m (from Safety and escape tunnel South portal to
Cross passage type B No.7); finished cross section 18.2 m2; excavated cross section 28 to 32
m2. Lay-by (LB): No.19, at L≤375m intervals; Lay-bys will be provided in Escape Tunnel on
Right side which will act like truck turning Niche/Over taking zone.
• Cross passages (CP): No.21, Lmean~15 m, at L≤375m intervals; Vehicular (CPB) and
pedestrian (CPA) cross passages will be arranged in order to have the repeated pattern 1
CPB and 2 CPA.
• Adit: No.1 length~585 m. Salient geometric characteristics: (a) the Adit will be located at CH
129+010.00 (b) Finished Cross: 38.2 m2 (c) Excavated Cross: 58 m2.
• Underground electrical substation (UES, Medium Voltage Sub-station Niches): No.3; for E&M
safety provisions. UES No.1 will be located in correspondence of LB5; UES No.2 will be
located along the Adit1; UES No.3 will be located in correspondence of LB14.
According to the design speed (100 km/h), the minimum curvature radius is approx. 650m. In the
already excavated stretch of T-67 tunnel (that will be included in the T-74R), the minimum curvature
radius is 445m, which invariably implies a speed reduction. In this respect, it is fair to note that as the
T-67 is located close to Aprinchala station, the real speed of stopping trains will be lower than the

-5-
design speed, therefore safety criteria and passenger comfort shall be met even with a reduced
radius. In any case, a time-cost investigation has identified the partial re-profiling of T-67 as the
optimal solution to fully meet the design speed criteria.
The proposed alignment presents the following advantages: (i) it is cost effective, as it minimizes the
length of the tunnel, (ii) based on the preliminary geological survey of the area, it minimizes the
interferences with potential instabilities, reducing the risks of encountering again critical geological
conditions situations without increasing the maximum tunnel overburden, and (iii) finally, it allows to
save almost completely the already-excavated T-67 tunnel and to re-use part of the existing T-74. For
all these reasons, this alignment is considered optimal.

4 Support sections
The Detailed Design has been developed principally in accordance to the recommendations indicated
in “Guidelines for Design, Tendering and Construction of Underground Works” elaborated by SIG
(Italian Tunneling Association) in 1997 in relation to tunneling. These “Guidelines” are based on the
identification of the “key points” and their organization into “subjects” representing the various
successive aspects of the problem to be analyzed and quantified during design/tendering/construction.
The degree of detail of each “key point” depends on the peculiarities of the specific project and design
stage. The process involves the following essential phases: 1) general setting of the underground
work; 2) geological survey and geotechnical-geomechanical studies; 3) prediction of mechanical
behaviour of the rock masses; 4) design choices and calculations; 5) design of auxiliary works and
preparation of tender documents; 6) results of geotechnical measurements and monitoring during
tunnel construction shall be taken into account for prediction of deformations and for the determination
of Section Type to be applied.

4.1 Quantitative approach to define the mechanical behaviour of the rock masses
This step allows to understand the excavation behaviour considering the Russo et al. (2006)
methodology. In order to do this it is necessary to carry out both stress (1) (Ground Reaction Curve;
GRC) and geostructural (2) considerations/analyses (see the following Figure 4).

Figure 4. Behavioural classification methodology (Russo et al, 2006)

Stress analyses are based upon a continuum or continuum-equivalent geomechanical model and are
mainly aimed at defining classification indexes and expressing the potential intensity of the expected
deformation phenomena.
In common practice, “competency” indexes are often used to represent the ratio between stress
conditions around the tunnel perimeter and the mobilized rock-mass strength (Hoek & Marinos, 2000)
or alternative indexes, based on more developed analytic tools, which directly express the expected
behaviour in terms of deformations and/or extent of the plasticized zone, as the one adopted in our
analysis.
Geostructural analyses can be broadly grouped in two sets: a) limit equilibrium methods, which are
normally used when spatial patterns of discontinuities, orientation and geomechanical properties of the
rock mass are well known; b) empirical methods which, by quantifying the rockmass typical

-6-
parameters, output indications on the expected behaviour especially in terms of self-supporting
capacity (e.g. Bieniawski’s RMR system).
With reference to the stress analysis of the classification process, the different rock masses are
analysed in function of existing stress condition at tunnel level, under the theoretical assumption of
absence of any design interventions. As reported in the following Table 4, no.6 categories are defined
from the best (“a” class) to the worst condition (“f”). More precisely, on the basis of stress analysis
no.5 conditions are identified as a function of the values of the two aforementioned deformational
index and a further subdivision is considered for the special cases of stable condition (class "a") and of
immediate instability of tunnel face (class "f"). Section types foreseen for the new T-74R tunnel
(section types A-B-C1-D-E) are also presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Classification scheme of the excavation behavior (Russo & Grasso, 2006-2007)
↓ ANALYSIS → Geostructural → Rock mass
Continuous ↔ Discontinuous ↔ Equivalent Cont.
Tensional ↓ ← RMR →
Deformational δ0(%) Rpl/R0 Behavioral
I II III IV V
response ↓ (1) (2) category ↓

Elastic a STABLE
negligible -
(σθ<σcm) (3) b A ROCK CAVING
FALL C1
SPALLING/ C1*
<0.5 1-2 c B
ROCKBURST
Elastic - Plastic 0.5-1.0 2-4 d C2 D+E
(σθ≥σcm)
>1.0 >4 e SQUEEZING

(f) → Immediate collapse of tunnel face ↑

(1) the deformation at tunnel face (δ0); (2) the extent of plastic zone (Rpl/R0); (3) σθ=max tangential
stress; σcm=rock mass strength.

4.2 Design choices

The obtained excavation behaviour (related with the geomechanical and stress conditions) allows
identification of the appropriate support to be installed in the Main Tunnel. This is made possible by
considering previous experience in other similar tunnels and the following set of typical
countermeasures linked to excavation behavior (Russo, 2008):
1) Section type A: Stable and Local Wedge / spot bolting;
2) Section type B: Rock Fall (RMR>50) / systematic bolting;
3) Section type C1 (see the Figure 5): Rock fall (RMR<50) + Caving (C1* with pre-reinforcement
of rock mass contour by forepoling; only in RMR IV class and/or in presence of low self
supporting capacity) / lattice girder + shotcrete;
4) Section type C2: Spalling and Rockburst; systematic yielding bolts (i.e. cone bolt) + shotcrete
with steel mesh;
5) Section type D: Severe squeezing / Tunnel face pre reinforcement + steel ribs + shotcrete;
6) Section type E: Very severe squeezing / tunnel face pre-reinforcement + steel ribs with sliding
joints + shotcrete + systematic radial bolting.
The main features of the proposed section type C1* (section type actually applied during main tunnel
and escape tunnel excavation) are shown in Figure 5. The characteristics of the section will be
reviewed and optimized during the final design stage, after verification and suggestion made by
IRCON.

-7-
 Location Rock support
2+2 drainages Φ22” overlapping=5m (if
required)
Lattice girder 95-141, spacing
1.25±0.25m
200mm fibre-reinforced sprayed
Full face concrete at tunnel periphery
excavation
N.3+3 rock bolts cemented selfdrilling
or equivalent, L=4m
N.15-20 swellex rock dowels or
equivalent (forepoling), L=3m, spacing
1.25±0.25m (if required)

Figure 5. Support section C1* adopted for the Main Tunnel

As of 29 Octber 2012 the Main Tunnel heading, from the south portal, was advanced using breaker up
to approximately the chainage of 125+900m, with to a total of 157 lattice girders installed. In the
following pictures are shown details of the lattice girder before e during installation at the front.

Figure 6. Lattice girder applied for the advancement along Main tunnel

5 Conclusions
The T-74R tunnel cross section and layout have been selected taking into account safety, costs and
construction aspects. Four solutions have been compared using the Multi-Criteria-Analysis. The
solution comprising a single tube-single track plus a parallel escape tunnel was ultimately chosen. A
risk analysis approach has been applied to the final tunnel design. Construction is currently in
progress. Present activities at site include excavation of the Main Tunnel from the South portal,
Escape Tunnel Portal slope formation benching and Main tunnel excavation from the North portal,
launched with the 1st blast on October 1st 2012.

6 References
Carranza-Torres C. 2004. Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using the generalized form of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 4: supplement 1, 629-639.
Hoek E. and Marinos P. 2000. Predicting Tunnel Squeezing. Tunnels and Tunnelling International. Part 1 –
November 2000, Part 2 – December, 2000.
National Project for Design. Tendering and Construction Standards in Underground Works promoted by AGI,
GEAM, IAEG, ITCOLD, SIG, SIGI 1997. Guidelines for Design, Tendering and Construction of Underground
Works. Attachment of Gallerie e Grandi Opere Sotterranee, No.51.
Palmstrom A. 1996. Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering. Tunn. and Und,
Space Tech. vol.11.
Russo G. and Grasso P. 2006. Un aggiornamento sul tema della classificazione geomeccanica e della previsione
del comportamento allo scavo. Gallerie e grandi opere sotterranee, N.80, pp.56-65.
Russo G. 2007. Improving the reliability of GSI estimation: the integrated GSI-RMi system. ISRM Workshop,
Underground Works under Special Conditions, Madrid, 6 July.
Russo G. 2008. A new rational method for calculating the GSI. Submitted to Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology.
Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer 2002. UIC-Codex 779-9R-Safety in Railway Tunnels. 24 Sep 2002.

-8-

View publication stats