Finite element modelling of load shed

and non-linear buckling solutions of

confined steel tunnel liners
10th Australia New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics,
Brisbane Australia, October, 2007
Doug Jenkins - Interactive Design Services
Anmol Bedi Mott MacDonald

Introduction
Port

Hedland Under Harbour Tunnel

Lined with 250 m thick gasketed precast
concrete segments now corroding
Proposal to reline with steel backgrouted
liner
Geotechnical and structural finite element
analyses
Comparison with analytical solution

Topics
The

proposed remedial work

Confined liner buckling
Jacobsen Closed Form Buckling Solution
Linear buckling FEA
Application to the project
Current stress state in tunnel liner
Future Installation of Steel Liner
Geotechnical FEA results
Conclusions

Port Hedland Under Harbour

Tunnel

Material Properties

Closed Form Solutions

Unrestrained

solution similar to Euler

column buckling
Rigid confinement restrains initial
buckling
Gap between pipe and surrounding
material allows single or multi lobe
buckling to occur
Buckling frequently forms a single lobe
parallel to the tunnel

Single Lobe Buckling

Comparison of buckling theories

Berti

(1998) compared theories by Amstutz

and Jacobsen
Amstutz approach was simpler, but assumed
constants may be unconservative
Also found that rotary symmetric equations
are unconservative compared with Jacobsen
Computerised analysis allows the more
conservative Jacobsen method more general
use

Jacobsen Equations

Jacobsen Equations
Jacobsens Analysis for Calculating Single Lobe Buckling of Circular Steel Tunnel Liner
Thickness
Radius

25 mm
2062.5 mm

t
r

0.25

Poisson's Ratio
Gap
Gap/radius
Yield stress
Young's Mod
R/t

0
0
250
200000
82.5
213333.3333

k
y

E
Rrt
Em
Estimated a

Rrt

Value
82.50

0.8

Error
0.0000

mm
MPa
MPa
Mpa

S o lve

Jacobsen Equations

Parametric Study

Unrestrained Buckling Model

Unrestrained Buckling

Unrestrained Buckling

Unrestrained Buckling

FE Model for Restrained Buckling

FE Model Detail

FE Model Detail

Restrained Buckling - deflection

Restrained Buckling - deflection

Restrained Buckling - gap

Effect of contact friction and restraint

stiffness
1300
Critical Pressure, kPa

1200
1100
1000
900
Friction Values: 1=0.7; 2=0.5; 3=0.3
Contact stiffness: 1=100, 2=10.0, 3=5.0, 4=1.0 MN/m
Rock/Soil stiffness: 1=10, 2=1.0, 3=0.25, 4=0.1, 5 =0.05 GPa

800
700
600
500
0

Run No
Friction

Contact Stiffness

Rock/Soil Stiffness

Effect of surcharge pressure

Geotechnical Analysis Current Stress

State

Geotechnical Analysis Elastic Modulus v

Bending Moment

Geotechnical Analysis Bending Moment

transfer to Steel Liner

Geotechnical Analysis Axial Load

Distribution in Steel

Summary Parametric Study

FE buckling analysis results in good agreement with

analytical predictions under uniform load for both
unrestrained and restrained conditions.
Under hydrostatic loads the unrestrained critical pressure
was greatly reduced, but there was very little change for
the restrained case.
FE results in good agreement with Jacobsen for gaps up to
20 mm.
Varying restraint stiffness had a significant effect, with
reduced restraint stiffness reducing the critical pressure.
A vertical surcharge pressure greatly increased the critical
pressure, with the pipe failing in compression, rather than
bending.
Variation of the pipe/rock interface friction had little effect.

Summary Geotechnical Analysis

The coefficient of in-situ stress (K0) and the soil or rock

elastic modulus both had an effect on the axial load in the
steel liner.
Since plasticity had developed around the segmental liner
further deterioration of the concrete segments resulted in
only small further strains in the ground.
The arching action of the ground and the small increase
in strain resulted in increased axial load in the concrete
segments and steel liner, but negligible bending moment
transferred to the steel liner.

Conclusions
For

the case studied in this paper the Jacobsen

theory was found to be suitable for the design of
the steel liner since:
It gave a good estimate of the critical pressure under
hydrostatic loading
Deterioration of the concrete liner was found not to
increase the bending moments in the steel liner
significantly

In

situations with different constraint stiffness or

loading conditions the Jacobsen results could be
either conservative or un-conservative.
Further investigation of the critical pressure by
means of a finite element analysis is therefore
justified when the assumptions of the Jacobsen
theory are not valid.