NON LINEAR SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
OF SMART TUNNEL
SAFFUAN BIN WAN AHMAD
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil – Structure)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JUN 2009
iii
Special Thanks…
To My Beloved Wife …
Syahirul Akmal Binti Ani@Mahbar
To My Beloved Family …
Haji Wan Ahmad Bin Wan Su
Hajjah Zabariah Binti Yahya
Wan Saiful Amin Bin Wan Ahmad
Aida Hayati Binti Wan Ahmad
Ali Hisham Bin Wan Ahmad
Ahmad Syahir Bin Wan Ahmad
Abdullah Hakiim Bin Wan Ahmad
Haji Ani@Mahbar Bin Abdullah
Hajjah Aripah Binti Md. Yunus
Rahimah Binti Ani@Mahbar
Zulkepli Bin Ani@Mahbar
Kamaruzzaman Bin Ani@Mahbar
Norzila Binti Ani@Mahbar
Kamaruddin Bin Ani@Mahbar
Allahyarham Abdul Razak Bin Ani@Mahbar
Jamaliah Binti Ani@Mahbar
Norhanipah Binti Ani@Mahbar
Mohd Faisal Bin Ani@Mahbar
Muhammad Khairul Syazwan Bin Ani@Mahbar
Nurul Hudha Binti Ani@Mahbar
Muhammad Khairul Shazli Bin Ani@Mahbar
Nurul Najwa Binti Ani@Mahbar
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Assalamualaikum w.b.t
First and foremost, I would like to express my warmest appreciation to my
supervisor, Professor Dr. Azlan Adnan for his guidance, encouragement, motivation
and valuable advice. Without his support and guidance, this thesis would not have
been the same as presented here.
I am also very thankful to my lecturer, Mr Mohd. Zamri Ramli for giving me
guidance, and opinions to improve this thesis. His advice and assistance me during
the preparation of this project are very much appreciated.
Special thanks go to the members of Structural Earthquake Engineering
Research (SEER) ; Meldi, Fadrul, Ong Peng Pheng, Nik Zainab and Ku Safirah for
the noble guidance and valuable advice throughout the period of study. Their patience,
time, and understanding are highly appreciated.
My sincere appreciation also extends to my lovely wife Syahirul Akmal Binti
Ani@Mahbar, my lovely parents Haji Wan Ahmad Wan Su and Hajjah Zabariah
Binti Yahya and family members who have been supportive at all times. Finally, I
would like to thank all my dearest friends who were involved directly and indirectly
in completing this thesis.
v
ABSTRAK
Projek Terowong Jalan Raya dan Pengurusan Air Banjir (SMART) di Kuala Lumpur
(KL) melibatkan proses rekabentuk dan pembinaan yang bertujuan untuk lalulintas
dan juga laluan perparitan. Bahagian-bahagian daripada terowong ini direkabentuk
dan dibina untuk dua tujuan utama; pertama, jalan bertingkat adalah untuk
menyelesaikan masalah lalulintas yang sibuk di Bandar Kuala Lumpur dan juga
untuk mengurangkan masalah banjir. Terowong ini dibina menggunakan beberapa
teknik seperti ‘bored’ dan ‘cut & cover tunneling’. Terowong ini juga mempunyai
dua simpang bawah tanah untuk membenarkan kenderaan keluar dan masuk.
Terowong adalah salah satu struktur bawah tanah yang terbesar dan merupakan
struktur paling selamat semasa berlaku gempa bumi. Walaupun terowong adalah
lebih selamat berbanding struktur lain, kajian ini amat penting untuk meningkatkan
kesedaran tentang bahaya kesan gempa bumi terutamanya di Malaysia. Satu perisian
iaitu SAP 2000 akan digunakan dalam kajian ini berasaskan kaedah teori unsur tak
terhingga. Analisis dijalankan berdasarkan garis lurus analisis ‘Time History’ dan
Respons Spektra. Untuk tujuan semakan, keputusan daripada analisis unsur tak
terhingga akan dibandingkan dengan rekabentuk kapasiti terowong.
vi
ABSTRACT
The storm water management and road tunnel (SMART) project in Kuala
Lumpur (KL) involves the design and construction of a road and drainage tunnel. A
portion of tunnel is designed and constructed for dual purpose; firstly, a double deck
road tunnel to serve the increasing volume of traffic in the busiest district of KL city
and also to alleviate floods. The tunnel were constructed using several techniques
such as bored and cut & cover tunneling. There are also two underground junction
boxes to allow vehicle entry and exit from the motorway tunnel and two ventilation
shafts. Tunnels as one of the biggest underground structures are well known as the
safest structures during earthquakes. In theory, tunnel has the lower rate of damage
compared than other surface structures. Even though tunnel are much safer compared
than surface structures, this study are important to enhance awareness of seismic
hazards for tunnel especially in Malaysia. The existing structural analysis application
called SAP 2000 has been used in this study based on the theory of finite element
method. The analyses are conducted in linear time history and response spectrum
analysis. For checking purposes, the result from finite element analysis will be
compared with tunnel design capacity.
vii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
ITEM
PAGE
TITLE PAGE
i
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRAK
v
ABSTRACT
vi
CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
I
II
x
xiii
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Introduction
1
1.1
Tunnel Segment Smart Tunnels
3
1.2
Problem Statement
3
1.3
Objectives
4
1.4
Scope Of Study
4
1.5
Research Methodology
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
Introduction
6
2.1
Some Tunneling Problems
8
viii
2.1.1 Geological Condition
8
2.1.2 Land Subsidence/Sinkholes
9
2.1.3 Gas Problems
10
2.1.4 Ground Stresses
11
2.2
Smart Tunnels Design Components
11
2.3
Effect Of Sumatran Earthquake Of 29th March
14
2005 On Smart Tunnel
2.4
Seismic Hazards For Underground Structures
15
2.4.1 Earthquake Effect On Underground Structure
16
2.4.1.0 Ground Failure
16
2.4.1.1 Liquefaction
16
2.4.1.2 Fault Displacement
16
2.4.1.3 Slope Instability
17
2.4.2 Types of Deformation
III
17
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.0
Introduction
19
3.1
Tunnel Analysis Procedure
20
3.2
Tunnel Assumption
20
3.3
Process Of Analysis
20
3.4
Non Linear Analysis
21
3.5
Basic Principles Of TBM And Definitions
22
3.6
Basic Principles And Construction
24
3.6.1 Open TBM.
24
3.6.2 TBM With Roof Shield
24
ix
3.6.3 TBM With Roof Shield And Side
24
Steering Shoes.
3.6.4
TBM With Cutter Head Shield.
25
3.6.5 Single Shield TBM.
25
3.6.6 Double Shield Or Telescopic Shield
26
TBM.
3.7
3.6.7 Closed Systems.
27
Seismic Hazards
27
3.7.1 Ground Shaking
27
3.7.2 Liquefaction
28
3.7.3
29
Retaining Structure Failures
3.7.4 Lifeline Hazards
3.8
Practical Guide To Grouting Of Underground
30
30
Structures
3.9
IV
Grouting Method
32
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.0
Introduction
34
4.1
Tunnel Structure
34
4.2
SAP 2000 Analysis Software
35
4.3
Tunnel Model
35
4.4
Two Dimensional Tunnel
37
4.5
Material Properties
38
4.6
Free Vibration Analysis
39
4.7
Time History Analysis (Model A)
40
4.8
Response Spectrum Analysis (Model A)
45
4.9
Time History Analysis (Model B)
48
4.10
Response Spectrum Analysis (Model B)
53
4.11
Time History Analysis (Model C)
56
x
4.12
Response Spectrum Analysis (Model C)
60
4.13
Design Capacity
63
4.14
Analysis Using Different Level Of Earthquake
64
Intensities
V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.0
Introduction
68
5.1
Time History Analysis
68
5.2
Response Spectrum Analysis
70
5.3
Conclusion
71
5.4
Recommendation
72
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A-G
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
TITLE
PAGE
Table 1.1
Tunneling Activities From 1995 To 2005
Table 4.1
Coordinates Of SMART Tunnel Lining
36
Table 4.2
Material Properties For Soil Data
38
Table 4.3
Material Properties Tunnel Lining
38
Table 4.4
Period With Various Mode Shapes
40
Table 4.5
Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Time
45
2
History (Model A)
Table 4.6
Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Time
45
History (Model A)
Table 4.7
Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Time
45
History (Model A)
Table 4.8
Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For
48
Response Spectrum (Model A)
Table 4.9
Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Response
Spectrum (Model A)
48
xii
Table 4.10
Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Response
48
Spectrum (Model A)
Table 4.11
Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Time
53
History (Model B)
Table 4.12
Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Time
53
History (Model B)
Table 4.13
Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Time
53
History (Model B)
Table 4.14
Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For
55
Response Spectrum (Model B)
Table 4.15
Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Response
55
Spectrum (Model B)
Table 4.16
Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Response
56
Spectrum (Model B)
Table 4.17
Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Time
60
History (Model C)
Table 4.18
Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Time
60
History (Model C)
Table 4.19
Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Time
60
History (Model C)
Table 4.20
Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For
Response Spectrum (Model C)
62
xiii
Table 4.21
Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Response
62
Spectrum (Model C)
Table 4.22
Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Response
63
Spectrum (Model C)
Table 4.23
Design Capacity Of The SMART Tunnel Analysis
63
(Lining)
Table 4.24
Design Capacity Of The SMART Tunnel Analysis
63
(Deck)
Table 4.25
Lining Moment Capacity – 0.38g
66
Table 4.26
Deck Moment Capacity – 0.38g
66
Table 4.27
Lining Moment Capacity – 0.57g
66
Table 4.28
Deck Moment Capacity – 0.57g
66
Table 4.29
Lining Moment Capacity – 0.76g
67
Table 4.30
Deck Moment Capacity – 0.76g
67
Table 5.1
Summary Of Lining Member Forces For Time
69
History Analysis
Table 5.2
Summary Of Upper Deck Member Forces For Time
69
History Analysis
Table 5.3
Summary Of Lower Deck Lining Member Forces For
Time History
69
xiv
Table 5.4
Summary Of Lining Member Forces For Response
70
Spectrum Analysis
Table 5.5
Summary Of Upper Deck Member Forces For
70
Response Spectrum Analysis
Table 5.6
Summary Of Lower Deck Lining Member Forces For
Response Spectrum
70
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
TITLE
PAGE
Figure 1.6.1
Process Of The Research
5
Figure 2.1.1.1 &
Heavy Steel Sets In Highly Sheared Granite, Sg.
8
2.1.1.2
Figure 2.1.2.1
Selangor Dam Diversion Tunnel.
Schematic Section of Kuala Lumpur Limestone
9
Formation
Figure 2.1.2.2
Karstic Limestone Bedrock Pinnacles Exposed
10
During Mining, Sungai Way (Now Bandar Sunway
In Petaling Jaya), A Former Suburb Kuala Lumpur.
Figure 2.2.1
SMART Tunnel Component.
12
Figure 2.2.2
Motorway Tunnel Cross Section
12
Figure 2.2.3
Three Mode Operation
13
Figure 2.3.1
Map Of Earthquake Zone
15
Figure 2.4.1
Deformation Modes Of Tunnels Due To Seismic
18
Waves (After Owen And Scholl, 1981)
xvi
Figure 3.4.1
Concrete Stress-Strain Curve
21
Figure 4.4.1
Model A
37
Figure 4.4.2
Model B
37
Figure 4.4.3
Model C
37
Figure 4.4.4
Legend
37
Figure 4.6.1
Mode Shapes On Model A
39
Figure 4.7.1
Ground Acceleration Of Rapid KL
40
Figure 4.7.2
The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And
41
Lining (Model A)
Figure 4.7.3
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
41
The Earthquake) At Frame 19,26 (Model A)
Figure 4.7.4
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
42
The Earthquake) At Frame 52 (Model A)
Figure 4.7.5
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
42
The Earthquake) At Frame 53 (Model A)
Figure 4.7.6
The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
43
Lining (Model A)
Figure 4.7.7
Shear Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
The Earthquake) At Frame 16,30 (Model A)
43
xvii
Figure 4.7.8
The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
44
(Model A)
Figure 4.8.1
Response Spectrum Of Rapid KL
46
Figure 4.8.2
The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And
46
Lining (Model A)
Figure 4.8.3
The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
47
Lining (Model A)
Figure 4.8.4
The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
47
(Model A)
Figure 4.9.1
The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And
49
Lining (Model B)
Figure 4.9.2
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
49
The Earthquake) At Frame 7,14 (Model B)
Figure 4.9.3
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
50
The Earthquake) At Frame 52 (Model B)
Figure 4.9.4
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
50
The Earthquake) At Frame 53 (Model B)
Figure 4.9.5
The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
51
Lining (Model B)
Figure 4.9.6
Shear Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
The Earthquake) At Frame 16,30 (Model B)
51
xviii
Figure 4.9.7
The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
52
(Model B)
Figure 4.10.1
The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And
54
Lining (Model B)
Figure 4.10.2
The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
54
Lining (Model B)
Figure 4.10.3
The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
55
(Model B)
Figure 4.11.1
The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And
56
Lining (Model C)
Figure 4.11.2
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
57
The Earthquake) At Frame 19,26 (Model C)
Figure 4.11.3
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
57
The Earthquake) At Frame 52 (Model C)
Figure 4.11.4
Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
57
The Earthquake) At Frame 53 (Model C)
Figure 4.11.5
The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
58
Lining (Model C)
Figure 4.11.6
Shear Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of
58
The Earthquake) At Frame 16,30 (Model C)
Figure 4.11.7
The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
(Model C)
59
xix
Figure 4.12.1
The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And
61
Lining (Model C)
Figure 4.12.2
The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
61
Lining (Model C)
Figure 4.12.3
The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
62
(Model C)
Figure 4.14.1
0.38g Simulated Of Rapid KL Time History
64
Figure 4.14.2
0.57g Simulated Of Rapid KL Time History
65
Figure 4.14.3
0.76g Simulated Of Rapid KL Time History
65
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.0
INTRODUCTION
An earthquake is produced by the sudden rupture or slip of a geological fault.
Faults occur at the intersection of two segments of the earth’s crust. Peninsula
Malaysia lies in the Eurasian Plate and also within the Indian-Australian Plate.
Geologically, small faults also exist in East Malaysia. Records have shown that we
do sometimes experiences some off-set tremors originating from the Indonesian
zone. Thus there is a need for some seismic checking to be incorporated in the design
process so that the tunnels and structures would be resistant to earthquake
Tunnelling activities in Malaysia are related to a number of applications such
as for civil engineering constructions like tunnels for highways and railways, and
diversion tunnels in water supply and pressure tunnels in hydro power generation,
underground mining and quarrying; storage facilities, etc. and of late sewage tunnels.
Ting et al. (1995) summarized the tunnelling activities in Malaysia up to 1995.
2
Table 1 summarizes the tunnelling activities during the last decade (19952005) forvarious rock formations in Peninsular Malaysia. It can be seen that most of
the tunnels uses the drill and blast method. The significant advancement made is the
innovative use of TBM technique in the SMART tunnel construction to overcome
the problems posed by the treacherous Kuala Lumpur Limestone Formation.
Table 1.1 Tunneling Activities From 1995 To 2005
ITEM
NAME OF
THE
PROJECT
APPLICATIONS
GEOLOGY
OBSERVATIONS
1
Sg. Selangor
Dam (water
supply)
Division Tunnel
Granite /
faulting
Excessive overbreak
D & B, completed
2003.
2
SMART
Karak Highway
Limestone /
Alluvium
Granite
Sinkholes, etc. TBM
3
D & B, 1997.
4
Kelinci Dam
(water supply)
Pergau Dam
(hydroelectric)
Dual Flood
Mitigation/Roadway
Highway Twin
Tunnels
Water Transfer
Tunnel
Division & Pressure
Tunnels,
Powerhouse
Granite / fault
TBM, 1996.
5
6
Penchala Link
Highway Twin
Tunnels
7
K.L.L.R.T.
Subway Twin
Tunnels
8
Beris Dam
(water supply)
Division Tunnel
9
Kinta Dam
(water supply)
Division Tunnel
10
Bakun Dam
(hydroelectric)
Interstate Water
Transfer Scheme
Division & Pressure
Tunnels
Water Transfer
Tunnel
11
Granite
Low ground stresses,
mostly, minor Hydrothermal
metasediments alteration
D & B, 1997.
Granite / fault Some collapse, add.
support; D & B,
2004.
Limestone /
Sinkholes / hard
Kenny Hill fm skarn of 270 MPa
(metasedm
UCS.
and skarn)
TBM, 2000.
Sedimentary
5m Dia x 200m long
diversion tunnel D &
B, 2001.
Granite
D & B.
Sandstone /
shale
Granite
D & B.
45km long tunnel
connecting new dam
in Pahang to Langat
dam in Selangor
3
1.1
TUNNEL SEGMENT SMART TUNNELS
SMART is an acronym for Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel, a
project under the Federal Government initiated to alleviate the flooding problem in
the city centre of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The project is implemented through a
joint venture pact between MMC Berhad and Gamuda Berhad with Department of
Irrigation And Drainage Malaysia and the Malaysian Highway Authority as the
executing government agencies. (SMART, 2006)
The SMART tunnel is an innovative and cost-effective solution that
combines two distinct problems in Kuala Lumpur which is the major floods that
caused by heavy rains during the monsoon season and severe traffic congestion along
city streets during peak hours.
The SMART tunnel is a dual-purpose tunnel designed to cater for flow of
water and ease traffic congestion in the Kuala Lumpur city. The total storm water
tunnel length is 9.7km with 3km of motorway having two levels of traffic deck
within the storm water tunnel. The upper deck provided traffic lanes flowing South
while the lower deck provided traffic lanes flowing North.
1.2
PROBLEM STATEMENT
For along time, we have known that Malaysia are safe from earthquake
disaster since Malaysia were in the earthquake-free zone. Eventough Malaysia is
regarded as stable but still face slow magnitude earthquake in Bukit Tinggi, Pahang
and it’s have reveal that Malaysia are not free from seismic activity.
4
Furthermore, if earthquake occur in the nearby country such as Indonesia,
Malaysia will also get the impact. Azlan (2007) stated that Peninsular Malaysia does
lie on faults but have been known to be non-active faults. Malaysia is located in low
seismic activity area but the active earthquake fault line through the centre of
Sumatera just lies 350 km from peninsular.
Therefore when the earthquake occurs, the building or any structures face
some unpredicted risk from earthquake hazards. Since most of the building in
Malaysia does not include earthquake factor in their design consideration, this study
is important to increase the awareness of earthquake design consideration.
1.3
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are :
1. To study the dynamic characteristics of SMART Tunnel
2. To determine the behaviour of SMART Tunnel when earthquake occur.
3. To compare performance of structure under seismic loading with the
design capacity of SMART Tunnel.
1.4
SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of this study are :
1. Study architecture, structural and detailed drawing of SMART Tunnel.
2. Study the Soil Investigation Report of SMART Tunnel
3. SMART Tunnel is modelled using SAP 2000 computer software.
4. Modelling the tunnel using plane strain modeling
5. Perform dynamic loads from earthquake loads using non linear analysis.
5
1.5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research has been done based on the Figure 1.6.1. Before modelling the
tunnel using SAP 2000 program, data from SMART Tunnel such as detailed drawing
and soil investigation report have been collect. The others parameter needs in SAP
2000 program like material properties, dimension, load acting on tunnel lining,
tunnel shape and other control data have to be identify. After the tunnel is model, it
been analyze with earthquake loading from actual ground acceleration. Then tunnel
model will be compare with design capacity to check the performance of the tunnel
during earthquake.
Collecting
Data
Tunnel
Modelling
Analysis
Vulnerability
Analysis
Performance
Analysis
Figure 1.6.1 : Process Of The Research
The analysis that will be do in this research are response spectrum analysis, time
history analysis and dynamic non linear analysis. Response spectrum analysis is
performed to study the peak response of structures under earthquake loading. The
earthquake responses studied include shear forces and axial force. For the time history
analysis, the actual time history is taken as the earthquake ground motion.
For dynamic non linear analysis, since damage potential and ultimate failure can
usually be directly related to the inelastic displacement capacity of the structure, in
recent years there has been a shift of attention away from linear methods of seismic
analyses to nonlinear methods which put emphasis on the displacements within the
structure. Thus, nonlinear methods of analysis that are capable of realistically predicting
the deformations imposed by earthquakes on structures are needed. In response to this
need, SAP 2000 computer software is used to evaluate dynamic nonlinear analysis of the
structure
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
INTRODUCTION
There are several reasons for utilizing tunnels. They can be used to connect
land masses, to bypass impeding geologic formation, or stability issues, and to
reduce environmental concerns. Most tunnels, however, are used to increase the flow
of traffic. Fifty percent of the world’s population live in urban areas and seventy
percent of the population live in earthquake prone areas (Merritt, et al. 1985).
Initially, tunnels were designed with no regard to seismic effects, but, recently, there
has been enhanced awareness of seismic hazards for underground structures.
There are two broad categories of earthquake effects of tunnels: ground
shaking and ground failure. When seismic waves propagate through the earth’s crust,
the resulting ground motions are considered ground shaking. There are two basic
categories of ground shaking. Body waves travel within the earth’s inner layers.
These waves can be either longitudinal P or transverse shear S waves. P waves move
in a compressional motion similar to the motion of a slinky, while the S waves move
in a shear motion perpendicular to the direction the wave is travelling.
7
These waves can travel in any direction underground. Surface waves travel
along the earth’s surface in the same matter a ripple would travel through water.
These waves can either be Rayleigh or Love waves. Love waves shake the surface
side-to-side. Rayleigh waves move the surface of the earth around in a circle,
forward and down then back and up. This is the same as the motion in an ocean wave
(Merritt, et al. 1985). Any tunnel structure will be deformed as the ground is
deformed by the traveling waves.
Ground failure can include different types of ground instability. These can
include faulting, liquefaction, and tectonic uplift and subsidence. Faulting occurs
when an increase in stress causes rocks to break. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in
which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other
rapid loading. Tectonic uplift and subsidence is the upward and downward
movement of the ground due to plate movement. These phenomena have been
responsible for tremendous amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the
world. Each of these hazards could possibly be detrimental to tunnel structures
(Merritt, et al. 1985).
Many tunneling methods are in common use, and a suitable one is generally
chosen according to geology, tunnel dimensions, and other factors (Kirzhner and
Rosenhouse 2000). The New Australian is a method in which, after a section of
tunneling is completed, shotcrete is applied to the surface of the tunnel and the
surrounding rock or soil becomes integrated into the support structure (Yang, 2002).
Extreme care is taken during excavation and immediate application of support media
prevents unnecessary loosening of soil. These tunnels use rounded tunnel shapes to
prevent stress concentrations in corners where most failure mechanisms start
(Yamaji, 1998). These tunnels, also, utilize thin linings to minimize bending
moment. Observation of tunnel behavior during construction is an important part of
NATM. This optimizes working procedures and support requirements (Yang, 2002).
Many countries have adopted this method as the primary method of construction.
8
2.1
SOME TUNNELING PROBLEMS
2.1.1
Geological Condition
In massive and competent granitic rocks, little tunnelling and support
problems are experienced. However, where extensive fault and shear zones occur,
excessive overbreaks and collapses can occur when tunnelling through the weak
zones. The over breaks and collapses would then require additional concreting and
other supports. Thus, for example, the Penchala Link twin tunnels traversed
generally massive and competent granite, except for a localized section of weathered
material due to a wide fault which caused some collapse.
The section needed additional supports, Ting et al. (2005). Similarly, a
localized zone of highly weathered material due to a shear zone in the interior section
of the Sg. Selangor diversion tunnel (in granite) also resulted in some collapse and
required heavy steel sets as additional supports as shown in Figure 2.1 & 2.2 before
tunnelling could proceed further
Figure 2.1.1.1 & 2.1.1.2
Heavy Steel Sets In
Highly Sheared Granite,
Sg. Selangor Dam
Diversion Tunnel.
9
2.1.2 Land Subsidence/Sinkholes
Land subsidence and sinkholes are associated with tunnelling through
limestone bedrock. These problems have been reported for the Kuala Lumpur LRT
subway tunnels, Gue & Singh (2000) and the SMART project, both involving TBM,
with press reports on sinkholes "popping-up" at one stage of the start of the SMART
project when the TBM’s were being assembled in a deep excavation in the
Limestone formation.
As to be expected, sinkholes/land subsidence are part and parcel of
construction in subsurface limestone formation with its highly irregular or pinnacled
bedrock profile which is overlain by weak alluvial soils or mine tailings, a typical
geologic setting in the Kuala Lumpur area. Figure 2.1.2.1 shows a schematic section
of Kuala Lumpur Limestone Formation. Figure 2.1.2.2 shows classic examples of
karstic limestone bedrock pinnacles exposed by mining of the alluvial tin ore in the
Sungai Way area, now Bandar Sunway in Petaling Jaya, a former suburb of Kuala
Lumpur.
The difficulties and problems associated with tunnelling through such
treacherous grounds (karstic limestone overlain by alluvium/mine tailings) can be
better appreciated from Figure 2.1.2.1 and Figure 2.1.2.2. The subsidence/sinkhole
problem has since been overcome by the use of slurry shield TBM in the SMART
project.
Figure 2.1.2.1
Schematic Section of
Kuala Lumpur Limestone
Formation
10
Figure 2.1.2.2 Karstic Limestone Bedrock Pinnacles Exposed During Mining,
Sungai Way (Now Bandar Sunway In Petaling Jaya),
A Former Suburb Kuala Lumpur.
2.1.3 Gas Problems
As the predominant rock formations encountered during tunnelling are
mainly granite, followed by some limestone, no gas problems have been reported
thus far. Gas problems are normally associated with coal deposits and associated
black shales. These rock formations have not been encountered in tunnelling works
here, though they were once encountered associated with underground mining of
coal deposits, and subsequent quarrying for shales for cement manufacture in the
Batu Arang (near Rawang) area, Selangor. These activities have since ceased, and
the mines/quarries long abandoned.
11
2.1.4 Ground Stresses
Measurement of ground stresses around tunnels or underground caverns is a
rare practice in Malaysia, perhaps partly due to the fact that most tunnels constructed
here are at shallow depths and as such, ground stresses are deemed "irrelevant". In
the previous paper, Ting et al. (1995), the case of the Batang Padang hydro-electric
dam in Cameron Highlands was cited where ground stresses around the powerhouse
were measured and results show high ground stresses approaching hydrostatic
conditions, i.e. the 3 principal stresses being equal in values.
It is interesting to note that for the Pergau Dam powerhouse, ground stresses
measured showed unusually low ground stresses that led to some construction
problems, Murray et al. (1993). Due to the low ground stresses, "hydrojacking" of
the rocks around the pressure tunnels became a real problem, and hence these tunnels
had to be supported by additional steel lining.
2.2
SMART TUNNELS DESIGN COMPONENTS
In November 2001 the outline of the scheme was based on a 9.7km long
11.83m internal diameter bored tunnel (Figure 2.2.1). The central 3.0km length
would also serve as a highway tunnel by providing two decks. The upper deck
provided two 3.35m wide traffic lanes and an emergency lane flowing South and the
lower deck make similar provision for traffic flowing North. It had been recognised
early on that there would only be enough space for cars and the maximum vehicle
height was restricted to 2.55m with a clear height between decks of 3.2m. The only
other example of a two-deck road tunnel within a circular bore was the A86 in Paris
which was then under construction.
12
One uncertainty that gave rise to debate was the acceptability to the car driver
and passengersof the limited height deck. The design speed was 60km/hr with an
indicated speed limit for traffic of 50km/hr.
Figure 2.2.1 SMART Tunnel Component.
Figure 2.2.2 Motorway Tunnel Cross Section
13
The tunnel can operate in three modes (Figure 2.2.3).
With the whole tunnel dry.
With the tunnel upstream and downstream of the highway section flooded
and with water flowing beneath the invert of the lower deck but with the road
decks open for traffic.
With the highway decks closed to cars and open to water flow
Figure 2.2.3 Three Mode Operation
14
2.3
EFFECT OF SUMATRAN EARTHQUAKE OF 29TH MARCH 2005 ON
SMART TUNNEL
At around 00:09 (Kuala Lumpur time) 29th March a major earthquake struck
Sumatra and was felt in Kuala Lumpur. This andicates that the earthquake had a
magnitude of 8.7 and was located 535km from Kuala Lumpur. This compares to the
26th December 2004 earthquake which had a magnitude of 9.0 but was located
639km from Kuala Lumpur.
Both of these earthquake accured in a known seismically active area and both
are in the top 10 of the Worlds larges earthquake since 1900 (the recent event rank at
number 8). The closer distance of the recent earthquake and the fact it happened at
night may have accounted for the greater number of people apparently feeling the
tremors despite the lower magnitude.
The USGS web site also contains the map of the severity of the measured
tremor in the SE Asia region and the amount of damage based on reports made to the
USGS. The map is presented in Figure 2.3.1. The map indicates thath the intensity of
the earthquake in KL was between class II and IV which indicates weak to light
shaking and negerally no damage. The closets reported location which appears to
have sustained light damage is Bandar Aceh in Sumatra.
If the magnitude and the distance to the earthquake are known. A very
preliminary back analysis of the PPA for the recent event indicates that Kuala
Lumpur may have experience a PPA in the order of 0.001g to 0.005 for the recent
event. This compares to a published back back analysis in Kula Lumpur from an
earthquake, also in Sumatra, in November 2002 where are PPA of 0.003g was
estimated for a magnitude 7.4 earthquake at a distance of 600km from Kuala
Lumpur.
15
Figure 2.3.1 Map Of Earthquake Zone
2.4
SEISMIC HAZARDS FOR UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES
Initially, tunnels were designed with no regard to seismic effects, but recently
there has been enhanced awareness of seismic hazards for underground structures
(Merit, et al.1985)
16
2.4.1 Earthquake Effect On Underground Structure
Earthquake effects on underground structures can be grouped into two
categories which is ground shaking and ground failure such as liquefaction, fault
displacement and slope instability. Ground shaking refers to the deformation of the
ground produce by seismic waves propagating through the earth’s crust. The major
factors influencing shaking damage include the shape, dimensions and depth of the
structure , the properties of the surrounding soil or rock, the properties of the
structure and the severity of the ground shaking (Dowding and Rozen, 1978)
2.4.1.0 Ground Failure
As a result of seismic shaking, ground failure may occur such as liquefaction,
fault displacement and slope instability. Ground failure is particularly prevalent at
tunnel portals and in shallow tunnels. Special design considerations are required for
cases where ground failure is involved.
2.4.1.1 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of soil is
reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Tectonic uplift and subsidence
is the upward and downward movement of the ground due to to plate movement.
These phenomena have been responsible for tremendous amounts of damage in
historical earthquakes around the world. Each of these hazard could possibly be
detrimental to tunnel structures (Meritt, et al.1985).
2.4.1.2 Fault Displacement
An underground structure may have to be constructed across a fault zone as it
is not always possible to avoid crossing active faults. In these situations, the
underground structure must tolerate the expected fault displacements, and allow only
minor damages. All faults must be identified to limit the length of special design
section, and a risk-cost analysis should be run to determine if the design should be
pursued.
17
2.4.1.3 Slope Instability
Landsliding as a result of ground shaking is a common phenomena.
Landsliding across a tunnel can result in concentrated shearing displacements and
collapse of the cross section. Landslide potential is greatest when a pre-existing
landslide mass intersects the tunnel. The hazard of landsliding is greatest in
shallower parts of a tunnel alignment and at tunnel portals. At tunnel portals, the
primary failure mode tends to be slope failures. Particular caution must be taken if
the portal also acts as a retaining wall (St. John and Zahrah, 1987). During the
September 21, 1999 Chi Chi earthquake in Taiwan slope instability at tunnel portals
was very common.
2.4.2 Types of Deformation
The behaviour of a tunnel is sometimes approximated to that of an elastic
beam subject to deformations imposed by the surrounding ground. Three types of
deformations (Owen and Scholl, 1981) express the response of underground
structures to seismic motions are axial compression and extension, longitudinal
bending and ovaling or racking .
Axial deformations in tunnels are generated by the components of seismic
waves that produce motions parallel to the axis of the tunnel and cause alternating
compression and tension. Bending deformations are caused by the components of
seismic waves producing particle motions perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Design considerations for axial and bending deformations are generally in the
direction along the tunnel axis (Wang, 1993).
Ovaling or racking deformations in a tunnel structure develop when shear
waves propagate normal or nearly normal to the tunnel axis, resulting in a distortion
of the cross-sectional shape of the tunnel lining. Design considerations for this type
of deformation are in the transverse direction. The general behaviour of the lining
may be simulated as a buried structure subject to ground deformations under a two
dimensional plane strain condition.
18
According to Kuesel (1969) diagonally propagating waves subject different
parts of the structure to out-of-phase displacements (Fig. 2.1d), resulting in
longitudinal compression rarefaction wave travelling along the structure. In general,
larger displacement amplitudes are associated with longer wavelengths, while
maximum curvatures are produced by shorter wavelengths with relatively small
displacement amplitudes. The assessment of underground structure seismic response,
therefore, requires an understanding of the anticipated ground shaking as well as a
evaluation of the response of the ground and the structure to such shaking
Figure 2.4.1 Deformation Modes Of Tunnels Due To
Seismic Waves (After Owen And Scholl, 1981)
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.0
INTRODUCTION
Many techniques can be used in structural dynamic analysis. In designing a
structure the most part that should be focus is the ability of the structure to withstand
the ground acceleration from the earthquake. Non Linear analysis is used in this
study. SAP 2000 is chosen as the non linear dynamic program that will analyze the
tunnel by Time History analysis and Response Spectrum analysis. It will compare the
axial force, shear force and moment under earthquake loading with actual design
capacity.
SAP 2000 will be used in Time History and Response Spectrum Analysis. In
reality it is hard to predict when the earthquake will occur. Therefore the design will
consider of some earthquake event that occurred in neigbouring country. The Time
History and Response Spectrum data that will used in design produce by other
researcher before. Appendix A shows the Rapid KL Time History and Appendix B
shows acceleration response spectrum for Rapid KL.
20
3.1
TUNNEL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
There are two major analysis in tunnel structural which are the linear and non
linear analysis. In this study, the main focus will be on the non linear analysis.
3.2
TUNNEL ASSUMPTION
Closed form solutions for estimating ground-structure interaction for circular
tunnels have been proposed by many investigators. These solutions are commonly
used for static design of tunnel lining. They are generally based on the assumptions
that:
• The ground is an infinite, elastic, homogeneous, isotropic medium.
• The circular lining is generally an elastic, thin walled tube under
plane strain conditions.
The models used in various previous studies vary in the following two major
assumptions, the effects of which have been addressed by Mohraz et al. (1975) and
Einstein et al. (1979):
• Full-slip or no-slip conditions exist along the interface between the
ground and the lining.
• Loading conditions are to be simulated as external loading
(overpressure loading) or excavation loading.
3.3
PROCESS OF ANALYSIS
The finite element software are defined as best tools to study the performance
of the tunnel. The process of analysis will go through the pre-processing until post
processing. Appendix C and D shows the processing of analysis by common
analytical modeling concept and dynamic analysis.
21
3.4
NON LINEAR ANALYSIS
A non linear structural problem is one in which the structure’s stiffness
changes as it deforms. All physical structures are non linear. Non linear analysis is a
convenient approximation that is often adequate for design purposes. It is obviously
in adequate for many structural simulations including manufacturing processes, such
as forging for stamping; crash analysis; and analysis of rubber components, such as
tires or engine mounts.
There are three sources of non linearity in structural mechanics simulations :
1- Material nonlinearity
2- Boundry nonlinearity
3- Geometric nonlinearity
For this research, only material nonlinearity analysis involved.
Linear Seismic design analysis have been carried out for the maximum design
earthquake. However, nonlinear design response analysis have been introduced for
the ultimate design earthquake.
Figure 3.4.1 Concrete Stress-Strain Curve
22
3.5
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF TBM AND DEFINITIONS
The description tunnel boring machine (TBM) refers to a machine for
driving tunnels in hard rock with a circular full-cut cutter head, generally
equipped with disc cutters. The rock is cut using these excavation tools by the
rotation of the cutter head and the blade pressure on the face. Tunnel boring
machines have sometimes also been described as milling machines, but this does
not describe their method of operation.
In contrast to drilling and blasting, where it is possible to react flexibly to the
interaction of tunnel and rock, either by subdividing the excavated section or by a
rapid adaptation of the support to the geological situation, this is not possible driving
with TBMs.
Gripper TBMs are suitable for use in hard rock with medium to high
stand-up time. The working face must be largely stable, because support by the
cutter head is only indirectly possible while driving. When the cutter head is
withdrawn from the face for maintenance or to change bits, then there is no more
support at the face. Under these conditions support, where necessary, can only be
achieved with additional measures. The capability to cut rock up to 300 MPa
enables TBMs to be used in most hard rock.
The higher investment cost of TBM driving compared with conventional
drilling and blasting can only be compensated by higher advance rates. A greater
length of drive is also necessary. If, however, the wear rate of the tools increases
too much on account of the rock strength or other negative parameters, frequent
cutter changing can lead to high downtime. This reduces the active working time
considerably, which is an essential characteristic of the efficiency of the machine.
Support measures required in fault zones and limited effectiveness of clamping
can also reduce the advance rate significantly.
23
The reduction in effective working time of the machine can reduce the
performance so far that it is no longer economical. This makes the logistical
processes of more significance than with conventional methods.
If the effectiveness of the clamping in most of the tunnel cannot be
guaranteed, then the use of shield tunnel boring machines is only possible against
already installed segmental lining. A decision to use a TBM also requires better
geological investigation than for drilling and blasting and extensive detailed
advance planning of the entire driving and supporting process.
Further considerations result from the form of the route. Especially tight
radius curves set limitations for shield TBMs with long shields. In the list below, the
essential advantages and disadvantages of a TBM drive in comparison with a
conventional drive are shown once more :
Advantages :
• Much higher advance rates possible
• Exact excavation profile
• Automated and continual work process
• Low personnel expenditure
• Better working conditions and safety
• Mechanisation and automation of the drive
Disadvantages :
• Better geological investigations and information are necessary than for
drilling and blasting
• High investment resulting in longer tunnel stretches being necessary
• Longer lead time for design and building of the machine
• Circular excavation profile
• Limitations on curve radii and enlargements
• Detailed planning required
24
3.6
BASIC PRINCIPLES AND CONSTRUCTION
The basic elements of a TBM are the cutter head, the cutter head carrier with
the cutter head drive motors, the machine frame and the clamping and driving
equipment. The necessary control and ancillary functions are connected to this
basic construction on one or more trailers.
3.6.1 Open TBM.
The description open TBM is limited to TBMs without static
protection units behind the cutter head. Machines of this type are today only
found in smaller diameters.
3.6.2 TBM With Roof Shield.
The construction of the TMB with roof shield corresponds to that of
the open TBM. If, however, isolated rockfalls are to be reckoned with during
excavation, then this type of machine has static protection roofs, so-called
roof shields, installed behind the cutter head to protect the crew.
3.6.3 TBM With Roof Shield And Side Steering Shoes.
The side steering shoes have, in addition to the protection function,
the purpose of support at the front when moving the machine and steering
during boring. The side surfaces can be driven radially against the tunnel
walls.
25
3.6.4
TBM With Cutter Head Shield.
The cutter head shield serves in this type of machine to protect the
crew in the area of the cutter head. When moving the machine, the short
shield liner forms the forward support.
3.6.5 Single Shield TBM.
Single shield TBMs are primarily for use in hard rock with short
stand-up time and in fractured rock. The cutter head is not essentially
different from that of a gripper TBM in relation to excavation tools and
muck transport. To support the tunnel temporarily and to protect the
machine and the crew, this type of TBM is equipped with a shield.
The shield extends from the cutter head over the entire machine.
The tunnel lining is installed under the protection of the shield tail. Support
with reinforced concrete segments has become the most commonly used
system nowadays. According to the geology and the application of the tunnel,
the segments are either installed directly as final lining (single shell
construction) or as temporary lining with the later addition of an in-situ
concrete inner skin (double shell lining).
In contrast to the gripper TBM, the machine is thrust forwards with
thrust jacks directly against the existing tunnel support.
26
3.6.6 Double Shield Or Telescopic Shield TBM.
The double shield or telescopic shield TBM is a variant of the shield
TBM. It enables, like also the single shield TBM, driving in fractured rock
with low stand-up time.
The double shield TBM consists of two main components, the front
shield and the gripper or main shield. Both shield parts are connected with
each other with telescopic jacks. The machine can either adequately clamp
itself radially in the tunnel using the clamping units of the gripper shield; or
where the geology is bad, can push off the existing lining in the direction of
the drive. The front shield can thus be thrust forward without influencing the
gripper shield, so that in general continuous operation is possible, nearly
independent of the installation of the lining.
The double shield TBM has, however, essential disadvantages
compared to the single shield TBM. When used in fractured rock with high
strength, the rear shield can block due to the material getting into the
telescopic joint. This is falsely described as the shield jamming.
Blocking and jamming are however caused differently and should
therefore be clearly differentiated.
The apparent advantages of the rapid advance of a double shield
TBM only apply with a single shell segmental lining, which requires
installation time per ring of about 3040 minutes. With a double shell
lining with installation time per ring of about 1015 minutes, the higher
purchase price and the greater need for repairs are no longer economical.
27
3.6.7 Closed Systems.
Closed TBM systems with shield are combined system solutions for
use under the water table, with water inflow being prevented by compressed
air or by supporting the cutting face according to the slurry or EPB principle.
These systems are used in hard rock and also in fractured rock.
3.7
SEISMIC HAZARDS
A number of naturally occurring events, such as earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornados, and floods, are capable of causing deaths, injuries, and
property damage. These natural hazards cause tremendous damage around the
world each year. Hazards associated with earthquakes are commonly referred to
as seismic hazards. The practice of earthquake engineering involves the
identification and mitigation of seismic hazards. The most important seismic
hazards are described in the following sections.
3.7.1 Ground Shaking
When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate away from the
source and travel rapidly through the earth's crust. When these waves
reach the ground surface, they produce shaking that may last from
seconds to minutes. The strength and duration of shaking at a particular
site depends on the size and location of the earthquake and on the
characteristics of the site.
28
In fact, ground shaking can be considered to be the most
important of all seismic hazards because all the other hazards are
caused by ground shaking. Where ground shaking levels are low, these
other seismic hazards may be low or nonexistent. Strong ground shaking
however can produce extensive damage from a variety of seismic hazards.
Although
seismic
waves
travel
through
rock
over
the
overwhelming majority of their trip from the source of an earthquake to
the ground surface, the final portion of that trip is often through soil, and
the characteristics of the soil can greatly influence the nature of shaking at
the ground surface. Soil deposits tend to act as "filters" to seismic
waves by attenuating motion at certain frequencies and amplifying it at
others. Since soil conditions often vary dramatically over short
distances, levels of ground shaking can vary significantly within a
small area.
3.7.2 Liquefaction
Some of the most spectacular examples of earthquake damage
have occurred when soil deposits have lost their strength and appeared to
flow as fluids. In this phenomenon, termed liquefaction, the strength of the
soil is reduced, often drastically, to the point where it is unable to
support structures or remain stable. Because it only occurs in saturated
soils, liquefaction is most commonly observed near rivers, bays, and other
bodies of water.
The term liquefaction actually encompasses several related
phenomena. Flow failures, for example, can occur when the strength of the
soil drops below the level needed to maintain stability under static
conditions. Flow failures are therefore driven by static gravitational
29
forces and can produce very large movements. Flow failures have caused the
collapse of earth dams and other slopes, and the failure of foundations.
The 1971 San Fernando earthquake caused a flow failure in the upstream
slope of the Lower San Fernando Dam that nearly breached the dam.
Thousands could have been killed in the residential area immediately
below the dam. Lateral spreading is a related phenomenon characterized
by incremental displacements during earthquake shaking. Depending
on the number and strength of the stress pulses that exceed the strength of
the soil, lateral spreading can produce displacements that range from
negligible to quite large. Lateral spreading is quite common near
bridges, and the displacements it produces can damage the abutments,
foundations, and superstructures of bridges.
Finally, the phenomenon of level-ground liquefaction does not
involve large lateral displacements but is easily identified by the presence of
sand boils produced by groundwater rushing to the surface. Although not
particularly damaging by themselves, sand boils indicate the presence of high
groundwater pressures whose eventual dissipation can produce subsidence
and damaging differential settlements.
3.7.3
Retaining Structure Failures
Anchored bulkheads, walls, and other retaining structures are
frequently damaged in earthquakes. Damage is usually concentrated in
waterfront areas such as ports and harbors. Because such facilities are
often essential for the movement of goods upon which local economies
often rely, the business losses associated with their failure can go far
beyond the costs of repair or reconstruction.
30
3.7.4 Lifeline Hazards
A network of facilities that provide the services required for
commerce and public health can be found in virtually any developed
area.
These
networks,
which
include
electrical
power
and
telecommunications, transportation, water and sewage, oil and gas
distribution, and waste storage systems, have collectively come to be
known as lifelines. Lifeline systems may include power plants,
transmission towers, and buried electrical cables; roads, bridges, harbors,
and airports; water treatment facilities, reservoirs and elevated water
tanks, and buried water distribution systems; liquid storage tanks and
buried oil and gas pipelines; and municipal solid waste and hazardous
waste landfills.
Lifeline systems and the facilities that comprise them provide
services that many take for granted but which are essential in modern
industrial areas. Lifeline failures not only have severe economic
consequences but can also adversely affect the environment and quality of
life following an earthquake.
3.8
PRACTICAL GUIDE TO GROUTING OF UNDERGROUND
STRUCTURES
The development of cementitious permeation grouting got its start as a
method to improve the foundation material of civil engineering structures built
in and around bodies of water. The concept of injecting self-hardening cementitious
slurry was first employed in 1802 in France to improve the bearing capacity
under a sluice (Bruce 1995). The development of cement grouting continued in
France and England throughout the 1800s. The applications were concentrated
on civil structures such as canals, locks, docks, and bridges (Bruce 1995).
31
The first recorded use of cementitious grout in underground
construction was when, in 1864, Peter Barlow patented a cylindrical one
piece tunnel shield with a cast iron liner constructed from within. The
annular void left by the tail of the shield was filled with grout (Tirolo 1994).
In 1893 the first systematic grouting of rock in the United States was performed at the New Croton Dam, in New York (Weaver 1991). The grouting
program at the Hoover Dam between 1932 and 1935 is said to mark the
beginning of systematic design of grouting programs in the United States
(Glossop 1961).
The development and advances of underground grouting technology in
soil and rock as they apply to design, equipment, and materials have for the
most part paralleled the advances made in dam and foundation grouting
preformed from the surface. Today, most underground civil engineering and
mining projects require some form of grouting. Depending on the type and
operating parameters of the underground facility, the geology, and groundwater
conditions, a grouting program can represent a considerable cost and scheduling
component of a project.
Grouting performed in conjunction with engineered underground
structures, such as tunnels, shafts, chambers, and mine workings, is similar to
grouting operations performed from the surface, such as installing a grout
curtain for a dam. In both cases grouting is used to fill pores, fissures, or voids in
the host geologic materials to reduce seepage, to strengthen foundation
material, or to improve ground-structure interaction.
32
3.9
GROUTING METHOD
The first step in selecting a grouting method is to determine the general
category of the geologic material to be grouted: it is either soil or rock. It is
quite simple to envision a material consisting of either soil or rock and
intuitively realize the distinction between the two. A clear definition, however,
is necessary. The contract documents must give the definitions of the various
earth materials expected to be encountered on the project as well as their
expected behaviors, keeping in mind that existing technical literature may
contain some overlap of the definitions. Variations in definitions also exist
among different agencies and from one geographical region to another. There
may also exist gray areas such as when the material could be either a weak rock
or a strong clay, or weathered rock versus a true soil.
Rock is defined as the hard and solid formations of the earth's crust
(Uumikis 1983). Soil is defined as sediments or other unconsolidated
accumulations of solid particles produced by the physical and chemical
disintegration of rocks, which may or may not contain organic matter (The
Asphalt Institute 1978).
Although the simple definitions for soil and rock are adequate, choosing a
grouting method is more complex and requires additional consideration. The
desired function of the grout, for example, stabilizing ground or cutting off
water, is an indispensable aspect. The character of the earth material to be
grouted, with respect to the size and spacing of the discontinuities in rock or the
particle size of the soil, is also critical.
33
A single underground project may require several different grouting
methods. These various methods may require different equipment and may be
performed at different stages and time periods in the project. For example, stabilization of a tunnel portal in soil may require jet grouting prior to the start of the actual
tunnel excavation. Later, the cast-in-place concrete tunnel lining may require
contact grouting to fill the space, or void, left between the concrete and rock
after the liner concrete has been placed. A period of months, or even years, may
transpire between the application of these two different grouting operations. They
may also be performed by two different contractors.
34
CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
4.0
INTRODUCTION
In this study, finite element modelling been used using SAP 2000 software.
This method is selected because it was an easy method and able to give values as
axial force, shear force, moment, displacement and deformation after the structure
being imposed by seismic load. The analysis is done in nonlinear using time history
analysis and response spectrum analysis. Ground acceleration of Rapid KL is used
with the intensities of ground motion 0.19g. Response Spectrum of Rapid KL is used
with 5% damping.
4.1
TUNNEL STRUCTURE
To perform this study, there are some information should be obtained as input
data such as material properties, soil layer and tunnel dimension. The actual drawing
plan of SMART Tunnel are enclosed in the Appendix G.
35
4.2
SAP 2000 ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
SAP 2000 software is used widely in this study. It is a full-featured program
that can be used for the simplest problems to the most complex problems .This
program can be analyse in linear and nonlinear analysis In this study, only nonlinear
analysis will be analyse.
SAP 2000 is a fully graphical windows program. With SAP 2000, all process
are performed in graphic user interface (GUI), due to modelling, analysis and also in
displaying results. All dimension, size and material properties of the tunnel need to
be defined in SAP 2000.
4.3
TUNNEL MODEL
The tunnel was modelled together with the soil layer. A mesh of 30x40m in
size with a tunnel radius of 5.9m has been used. Depth of the tunnel is taken at 10m
below the ground surface.
The model are divided into three types, there are all have different soil
properties. The model are consists clay layer, silt layer, sand layer, limestone layer
and gravel layer. The tunnel constructed as 2 dimensional.
Table 4.1 shows the coordinates produce by Autocad 2004 study. Using
Autocad Software, it was assumed that the points start from A to X with the (0,0,0)
coordinates on the middle bottom of the full model. The coordinates will produce the
exactly round structure of two dimensional tunnel structure.
36
Table 4.1 Coordinates Of SMART Tunnel Lining
POINT
COORDINATES - X
COORDINATES – Y
A
X = -5.9000
Y = 25.0000
B
X = -5.6990
Y = 26.5270
C
X = -5.1095
Y = 27.9500
D
X = -4.1719
Y = 29.1719
E
X = -2.9500
Y = 30.1095
F
X = -1.5270
Y = 30.6990
G
X = 0.0000
Y = 30.9000
H
X = 1.5270
Y = 30.6990
I
X = 2.9500
Y = 30.1095
J
X = 4.1719
Y = 29.1719
K
X = 5.1095
Y = 27.9500
L
X = 5.6990
Y = 26.5270
M
X = 5.9000
Y = 25.0000
N
X = 5.6990
Y = 23.4730
O
X = 5.1095
Y = 22.0500
P
X = 4.1719
Y = 20.8281
Q
X = 2.9500
Y = 19.8905
R
X = 1.5270
Y = 19.3010
S
X = 0.0000
Y = 19.1000
T
X = -1.5270
Y = 19.3010
U
X = -2.9500
Y = 19.8905
V
X = -4.1719
Y = 20.8281
W
X = -5.1095
Y = 22.0500
X
X = -5.6990
Y = 23.4730
37
4.4
TWO DIMENSIONAL TUNNEL
Using the coordinates that listed in Table 4.1, Model A, Model B and Model
C produce which that shows geometric model of the tunnel with different properties
of soil. The whole size of tunnel is modelled together with soil to analyze the actual
behaviour of the tunnel under earthquake effect in SAP 2000 software.
Figure 4.4.1 Model A
Figure 4.4.2 Model B
LIMESTONE
CLAY LAYER
SILT LAYER
SAND LAYER
GRAVEL LAYER
Figure 4.4.4 Legend
Figure 4.4.3 Model C
38
4.5
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
For the soil and geometric properties, the concentrations on linear properties
are taken as the input data. In this study, four value of the material properties for the
different four soil data (base on the given soil investigation data), as determined in
the Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Material Properties For Soil Data
In this analysis, the lining and decks are define as the beam/frame element.
The strength of concrete properties for common tunnel usually used are taken as the
input data in this analysis. The material properties for the tunnelling lining and decks
as indicated in the Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Material Properties Tunnel Lining And Deck
39
4.6
FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
The free vibration analyses are conduct before the external loading take into
account. This analysis is important as tools to make comparison between the same
model analyze using the different software. Figure 4.6.1 shows the mode shapes of
the Model A.
Figure 4.6.1 Mode Shapes On Model A
40
Table 4.4 shows the period from the various mode shapes. The range of
period decrease from 0.85702 (Mode 1) to 0.19281 (Mode 4).
Table 4.4 : Period With Various Mode Shapes
4.7
Mode Shape No.
Period
Mode 1
0.85702
Mode 2
0.30003
Mode 3
0.27183
Mode 4
0.19281
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS (MODEL A)
The actual time history is taken as the earthquake ground motion from
previous microzonation assessment. The intensities of this ground motion are 0.19g,
where g is the gravity acceleration (9.81m/s2) as shown in Figure 4.7.1. The number
of time-steps been integrated are 6136 with length of time-steps of 0.002. The time
history length are 12.27. The analysis will covered axial forces, shear forces and
moment for the nonlinear time history analysis.
Figure 4.7.1 : Ground Acceleration Of Rapid KL
41
Frame 53 : 345 KN
Frame 52 : 215 KN
Frame 26 : 899 KN
Frame 19 : 899 KN
Figure 4.7.2 : The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.7.3 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 19,26
42
Figure 4.7.4 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 52
Figure 4.7.5 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 53
Figure 4.7.2 shows the axial force at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame
19 and 26 is defined to have the biggest axial force along the lining. The maximum
axial force are 899 kN. Figure 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5 shows the axial forces at the same
frame due to the time period of the earthquake. Its shows that the maximum axial
forces due at 7.3 second (Frame 19, 26, 52) and 3.3 second (Frame 53) of the
earthquake event.
43
Frame 53 : 450 KN
Frame 52 : 513 KN
Frame 30 : 151 KN
Frame 16 : 151 KN
Figure 4.7.6 : The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.7.7 : Shear Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 16,30
44
Figure 4.7.6 shows the shear force at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame
16 and 30 is defined to have the biggest shear force along the lining. The maximum
shear force are 161 kN. Figure 4.7.7 shows the shear forces at the same frame due to
the time period of the earthquake. Its shows that the maximum shear forces due at 3.5
second (Frame 16, 30) of the earthquake event.
Frame 53 : 643 KNm
Frame 52 : 868 KNm
Frame 30 : 143 KNm
Frame 16 : 143 KNm
Figure 4.7.8 : The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.7.8 shows the moment at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame 16
and 30 is defined to have the biggest moment along the lining. The maximum
moment are 143 kNm. Figure 4.7.4, 4.7.5, 4.7.7 shows moment at the same frame
due to the time period of the earthquake.
45
Table 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 below summarized the result from the non linear time
history analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value includes axial
force, shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
Table 4.5 : Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Time History
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
899 KN
Frame 19, 26
7.3
Shear Forces
151 KN
Frame 16, 30
3.5
Moment
143 KNm
Frame 16, 30
3.5
Table 4.6 : Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Time History
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
215 KN
Frame 52
7.3
Shear Forces
513 KN
Frame 52
7.3
Moment
868 KNm
Frame 52
7.3
Table 4.7 : Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Time History
4.8
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
345 KN
Frame 53
3.3
Shear Forces
450 KN
Frame 53
3.3
Moment
643 KNm
Frame 53
3.3
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS (MODEL A)
Response spectrum analysis gives the maximum response of the tunnel due to
response spectrum data input. A response spectrum is simply a plot of the peak or
steady-state response (displacement, velocity or acceleration). In this study the
acceleration response spectrum are taken as the input data from the previous
earthquake with 5% damping. Figure 4.8.1 show the acceleration response spectrum
of the Rapid KL.
46
Figure 4.8.1 : Response Spectrum Of Rapid KL
From the response spectrum analysis, the maximum axial forces, shear forces
and moment are directly find. Figure 4.8.2, 4.8.3 and 4.8.4 shows the maximum axial
forces, shear forces and moment the lining, upper deck and lower deck of the tunnel.
Frame 53 : 35 KN
Frame 52 : 21 KN
Frame 26 : 132 KN
Frame 19 : 132 KN
Figure 4.8.2 : The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And Lining
47
Frame 53 : 45 KN
Frame 52 : 50 KN
Frame 30 : 22 KN
Frame 16 : 22 KN
Figure 4.8.3 : The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And Lining
Frame 53 : 643 KNm
Frame 52 : 231 KNm
Frame 30 : 21 KNm
Frame 16 : 21 KNm
Figure 4.8.4 : The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
48
Table 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 below summarized the result from the response spectrum
analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value includes axial force,
shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
Table 4.8 : Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Response Spectrum
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
132 KN
Frame 19, 26
Shear Forces
22 KN
Frame 16, 30
Moment
21 KNm
Frame 16, 30
Table 4.9 : Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Response Spectrum
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
21 KN
Frame 52
Shear Forces
50 KN
Frame 52
Moment
231 KNm
Frame 52
Table 4.10 : Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Response Spectrum
4.9
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
35 KN
Frame 53
Shear Forces
45 KN
Frame 53
Moment
643 KNm
Frame 53
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS (MODEL B)
Figure 4.9.1 to 4.9.6 below summarized the result from the time history and
response spectrum analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value
includes axial force, shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
49
Frame 53 : 598 KN
Frame 52 : 406 KN
Frame 7 : 3305 KN
Frame 14 : 3305 KN
Figure 4.9.1 : The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.9.2 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 7,14
50
Figure 4.9.3 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 52
Figure 4.9.4 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 53
Figure 4.9.1 shows the axial force at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame
7 and 14 is defined to have the biggest axial force along the lining. The maximum
axial force are 3305 kN. Figure 4.9.2, 4.9.3, 4.9.4 shows the axial forces at the same
frame due to the time period of the earthquake. Its shows that the maximum axial
forces due at 8.6 second (Frame 7, 14), 8.0 second (Frame 52) and 7.2 second (Frame
53) of the earthquake event.
51
Frame 53 : 490 KN
Frame 52 : 530 KN
Frame 30 : 300 KN
Frame 16 : 300 KN
Figure 4.9.5 : The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.9.6 : Shear Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 16,30
52
Figure 4.9.5 shows the shear force at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame
16 and 30 is defined to have the biggest shear force along the lining. The maximum
shear force are 3.00 kN. Figure 4.9.6 shows the shear forces at the same frame due to
the time period of the earthquake. Its shows that the maximum shear forces due at 8.6
second (Frame 16, 30) of the earthquake event.
Frame 53 : 697 KNm
Frame 52 : 949 KNm
Frame 30 : 400 KN
Frame 16 : 400 KN
Figure 4.9.7 : The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.9.7 shows the moment at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame 16
and 30 is defined to have the biggest moment along the lining. The maximum
moment are 40 kNm. Figure 4.9.3, 4.9.4, 4.9.6 shows moment at the same frame due
to the time period of the earthquake.
53
Table 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 below summarized the result from the non linear
time history analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value includes
axial force, shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
Table 4.11 : Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Time History
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
3305 KN
Frame 7, 14
8.6
Shear Forces
300 KN
Frame 16, 30
8.6
Moment
400 KNm
Frame 16, 30
8.6
Table 4.12 : Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Time History
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
406 KN
Frame 52
8.0
Shear Forces
530 KN
Frame 52
8.0
Moment
949 KNm
Frame 52
8.0
Table 4.13 : Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Time History
4.10
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
598 KN
Frame 53
7.2
Shear Forces
490 KN
Frame 53
7.2
Moment
697 KNm
Frame 53
7.2
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS (MODEL B)
From the response spectrum analysis, the maximum axial forces, shear forces
and moment are directly find. Figure 4.10.1, 4.10.2, 4.10.3 shows the maximum axial
forces, shear forces and moment the lining, upper deck and lower deck of the tunnel.
54
Frame 53 : 131 KN
Frame 52 : 74 KN
Frame 7 : 2454 KN
Frame 14 : 2454 KN
Figure 4.10.1 : The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And Lining
Frame 53 : 49 KN
Frame 52 : 42 KN
Frame 30 : 700 KN
Frame 16 : 700 KN
Figure 4.10.2 : The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And Lining
55
Frame 53 : 251KNm
Frame 52 : 245 KNm
Frame 16 : 46 KNm
Frame 30 : 46 KNm
Figure 4.10.3 : The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
Table 4.14, 4.15, 4.16 below summarized the result from the response
spectrum analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value includes
axial force, shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
Table 4.14 : Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Response Spectrum
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
2454 KN
Frame 7, 14
Shear Forces
700 KN
Frame 16, 30
Moment
46 KNm
Frame 16, 30
Table 4.15 : Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Response Spectrum
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
74 KN
Frame 52
Shear Forces
42 KN
Frame 52
Moment
245 KNm
Frame 52
56
Table 4.16 : Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Response Spectrum
4.11
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
131 KN
Frame 53
Shear Forces
49 KN
Frame 53
Moment
251 KNm
Frame 53
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS (MODEL C)
Figure 4.11.1 to 4.11.6 below summarized the result from the time history
and response spectrum analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces
value includes axial force, shear and moment for the lining and decks.
Frame 53 : 341 KN
Frame 52 : 213 KN
Frame 26 : 4986 KN
Frame 19 : 4986 KN
Figure 4.11.1 : The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And Lining
57
Figure 4.11.2 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 19,26
Figure 4.11.3 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 52
Figure 4.11.4 : Axial Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 53
58
Figure 4.11.1 shows the axial force at the lining and deck of the tunnel.
Frame 9 and 26 is defined to have the biggest axial force along the lining. The
maximum axial force are 4986 kN. Figure 4.11.2, 4.11.3, 4.11.4 shows the axial
forces at the same frame due to the time period of the earthquake. Its shows that the
maximum axial forces due at 4.1 second (Frame 19, 26), 9.5 second (Frame 52) and
3.4 second (Frame 53) of the earthquake event.
Frame 53 : 450 KN
Frame 52 : 512 KN
Frame 30 : 300 KN
Frame 16 : 300 KN
Figure 4.11.5 : The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.11.6 : Shear Force Of The Tunnel (By Time Period Of The Earthquake) At Frame 16,30
59
Figure 4.11.5 shows the shear force at the lining and deck of the tunnel.
Frame 16 and 30 is defined to have the biggest shear force along the lining. The
maximum shear force are 397 kN. Figure 4.9.6 shows the shear forces at the same
frame due to the time period of the earthquake. Its shows that the maximum shear
forces due at 8.6 second (Frame 16, 30) of the earthquake event.
Frame 53 : 643 KNm
Frame 52 : 867 KNm
Frame 30 : 410 KNm
Frame 16 : 410 KNm
Figure 4.11.7 : The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
Figure 4.11.7 shows the moment at the lining and deck of the tunnel. Frame
16 and 30 is defined to have the biggest moment along the lining. The maximum
moment are 38.7 kNm. Figure 4.11.3, 4.11.4, 4.11.6 shows moment at the same
frame due to the time period of the earthquake.
60
Table 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19 below summarized the result from the non linear
time history analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value includes
axial force, shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
Table 4.17 : Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Time History
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
4986 KN
Frame 19, 26
4.1
Shear Forces
300 KN
Frame 16, 30
8.6
Moment
410 KNm
Frame 16, 30
8.6
Table 4.18 : Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Time History
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
213 KN
Frame 52
9.5
Shear Forces
512 KN
Frame 52
9.5
Moment
867 KNm
Frame 52
9.5
Table 4.19 : Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Time History
4.12
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Time (sec)
Axial Forces
341 KN
Frame 53
3.4
Shear Forces
450 KN
Frame 53
3.4
Moment
643 KNm
Frame 53
3.4
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS (MODEL C)
From the response spectrum analysis, the maximum axial forces, shear forces
and moment are directly find. Figure 4.12.1, 4.12.2, 4.12.3 shows the maximum axial
forces, shear forces and moment the lining, upper deck and lower deck of the tunnel.
61
Frame 53 : 64 KN
Frame 52 : 69 KN
Frame 26 : 2157 KN
Frame 19 : 2157 KN
Figure 4.12.1 : The Maximum Axial Force Of The Deck And Lining
Frame 53 : 43 KN
Frame 52 : 37 KN
Frame 30 : 600
Frame 16 : 600 KN
Figure 4.12.2 : The Maximum Shear Force Of The Deck And
62
Frame 53 : 218 KNm
Frame 52 : 215 KNm
Frame 16 : 40 KNm
Frame 30 : 40 KNm
Figure 4.12.3 : The Maximum Moment Of The Deck And Lining
Table 4.20, 4.21, 4.22 below summarized the result from the response
spectrum analysis. The result consists of maximum member forces value includes
axial force, shear and moment for the lining, upper deck and lower deck.
Table 4.20 : Maximum Lining Member Forces Value For Response Spectrum
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
2157 KN
Frame 19, 26
Shear Forces
600 KN
Frame 16, 30
Moment
40 KNm
Frame 16, 30
Table 4.21 : Maximum Upper Deck Forces Value For Response Spectrum
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
64 KN
Frame 52
Shear Forces
37 KN
Frame 52
Moment
215 KNm
Frame 52
63
Table 4.22 : Maximum Lower Deck Forces Value For Response Spectrum
4.13
Type Of Forces
Value
Location
Axial Forces
69 KN
Frame 53
Shear Forces
43 KN
Frame 53
Moment
218 KNm
Frame 53
DESIGN CAPACITY
The free-field ground strain equations, originally developed by Newmark
have been widely used in the seismic design of underground pipelines. This method
has also been used successfully for seismic design of long, linear tunnel structures in
several major transportation projects.
From the equation used, Table 4.23 and Table 4.24 shows the lining and
decks design capacity of the SMART Tunnel. The design capacity calculation is
enclosed in the Appendix E and F.
Table 4.23 : Design Capacity Of The SMART Tunnel Analysis (Lining)
Type Of Forces
Value
Axial Forces
58,238 KN
Shear Forces
548 KN
Moment
150,148 KNm
Table 4.24 : Design Capacity Of The SMART Tunnel Analysis (Deck)
Type Of Forces
Value
Axial Forces
7,715 KN
Shear Forces
5,540 KN
Moment
14,529 KNm
64
4.14
ANALYSIS USING DIFFERENT LEVEL OF EARTHQUAKE
INTENSITIES
Analysis using different level of earthquake intensities used to check the
capability of the tunnel. For this research, only time history analysis and moment
capacity compared because the tunnel failure mainly caused by its inability to hold
the design ultimate resistance moment of earthquake loading.
Therefore it is concluded that momet is the main parameter which governs
the seismic performance of the tunnel lining and decks. Table 4.25 – Table 4.28
shows the comparison between element loading and element capacity of lining and
decks.
The value of earthquake intensities used are 0.38g and 0.76g. Figure 4.14.1,
4.14.2 and 4.14.3 shows the Time History that simulated from Rapid KL Time
History.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Figure 4.14.1 : 0.38g Simulated Of Rapid KL Time History
140
65
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Figure 4.14.2 : 0.57g Simulated Of Rapid KL Time History
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Figure 4.14.3 : 0.76g Simulated Of Rapid KL Time History
140
66
Table 4.25 : Lining Moment Capacity – 0.38g
Types Of Model
Value
Model A
74, 300 KNm
Model B
78, 493 KNm
Model C
77, 534 KNm
Table 4.26 : Deck Moment Capacity – 0.38g
Types Of Model
Value
Model A
8,543 KNm
Model B
9,645 KNm
Model C
8, 938 KNm
Table 4.27 : Lining Moment Capacity – 0.57g
Types Of Model
Value
Model A
120, 436 KNm
Model B
133, 874 KNm
Model C
122, 453 KNm
Table 4.28 : Deck Moment Capacity – 0.57g
Types Of Model
Value
Model A
15, 997 KNm
Model B
17, 431 KNm
Model C
14, 765 KNm
67
Table 4.29 : Lining Moment Capacity – 0.76g
Types Of Model
Value
Model A
170, 433 KNm
Model B
177, 774 KNm
Model C
168, 234 KNm
Table 4.30 : Deck Moment Capacity – 0.76g
Types Of Model
Value
Model A
33, 471 KNm
Model B
32, 443 KNm
Model C
30, 112 KNm
The tunnel lining and decks are safe up to 0.38g earthquake intensity. But
when the intensity of earthquake increased to 0.57g, it shows that the upper and
lower deck fail. However, the lining can resist the moment at intensity 0.57g, but
have failed when intensity 0.76g applied to the analysis.
68
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.0
INTRODUCTION
The capability of the tunnel to resist the earthquake loading is analyze based
on time history analysis and response spectrum analysis. Ground acceleration of
Rapid KL is used with the intensities of ground motion 0.19g. For Response
Spectrum, Response Spectrum of Rapid KL is used with 5% damping.
5.1
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
From the result shown in Table 5.1, it has found that all the forces which is
axial forces, shear forces and moment are still under capacity for the three types of
tunnels modelled.
69
Table 5.1 : Summary Of Lining Member Forces For Time History Analysis
Type Of
Tunnel
Tunnel
Tunnel
Lining
Forces
Model A
Model B
Model C
Capacity
Axial Forces
899 KN
3,305 KN
4,986 KN
58,238 KN
Shear Forces
151 KN
300 KN
300 KN
548 KN
Moment
143 KNm
400 KNm
410 KNm
150,148 KNm
Table 5.2 : Summary Of Upper Deck Member Forces For Time History Analysis
Type Of
Tunnel
Tunnel
Tunnel
Deck
Forces
Model A
Model B
Model C
Capacity
Axial Forces
215 KN
406 KN
213 KN
7,715 KN
Shear Forces
513 KN
530 KN
512 KN
5,540 KN
Moment
868 KNm
949 KNm
867 KNm
14,529 KNm
Table 5.3 : Summary Of Lower Deck Lining Member Forces For Time History
Type Of
Tunnel
Tunnel
Tunnel
Deck
Forces
Model A
Model B
Model C
Capacity
Axial Forces
345 KN
598 KN
341 KN
7,715 KN
Shear Forces
450 KN
490 KN
450 KN
5,540 KN
Moment
643 KNm
697 KNm
643 KNm
14,529 KNm
70
5.2
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
From the analysis (Table 5.4, Table 5.5 and Table 5.6), the result shows that
tunnel model A, model B and model C are still under the capacity in term of lining,
upper deck and lower deck.
Table 5.4 : Summary Of Lining Member Forces For Response Spectrum Analysis
Type Of
Tunnel
Tunnel
Tunnel
Lining
Forces
Model A
Model B
Model C
Capacity
Axial Forces
132 KN
2,454 KN
2,157 KN
58,238 KN
Shear Forces
22 KN
700 KN
600 KN
548 KN
Moment
21 KNm
46 KNm
40 KNm
150,148 KNm
Table 5.5 : Summary Of Upper Deck Member Forces For Response Spectrum Analysis
Type Of
Tunnel
Tunnel
Tunnel
Deck
Forces
Model A
Model B
Model C
Capacity
Axial Forces
21 KN
74 KN
64 KN
7,715 KN
Shear Forces
50 KN
42 KN
37 KN
5,540 KN
Moment
231 KNm
245 KNm
215 KNm
14,529 KNm
Table 5.6 : Summary Of Lower Deck Lining Member Forces For Response Spectrum
Type Of
Tunnel
Tunnel
Tunnel
Deck
Forces
Model A
Model B
Model C
Capacity
Axial Forces
35 KN
131 KN
69 KN
7,715 KN
Shear Forces
45 KN
49 KN
43 KN
5,540 KN
Moment
643 KNm
251 KNm
218 KNm
14,529 KNm
71
5.3
CONCLUSION
From the analysis, its shows that the tunnel gives the lower result of forces
compare with the design capacity of SMART Tunnel. We can conclude that, the
effect from the actual earthquake on that tunnel may not give major effect to the
tunnel. Based on the study of tunnel structure, the following conclusion can be
derived:
i.
Tunnel Model C is more critical in lining analysis compared to the other
models. It is because of the limestone properties that present in the soil layer.
This type of model should be used for the design consideration.
ii.
Tunnel Model A is less critical in lining analysis compared to the other
models. This model has less thickness of sand layer than others and also did
not have limestone layer in the soil layer.
iii.
For upper and lower deck analysis, deck for Model B is more critical
compared to the other models. It is because of the large mass from sand layer
transfer to the decks.
iv.
Lining of the tunnel cannot resist moment capacity at the 0.76g of earthquake
intensity that simulated from the Rapid KL Time History.
v.
Decks of the tunnel cannot resist moment capacity at the 0.57g of earthquake
intensity that simulated from the Rapid KL Time History.
72
5.4
RECOMMENDATION
For further study and to make it more accurate with the actual state of the
tunnel, the following recommendation can be made :
i.
In this study, the water flow below the tunnel were not be considered as the
main objective of this study to find out the most critical part on the tunnel
capability. Therefore, for further study the water flow and pressure should be
included in the analysis to make it more accurate with the actual state of the
tunnel.
ii.
Connection type and strength between lining and decks also not considered in
this study. Therefore, for further study the connection type and strength
should be included in the analysis to make it more accurate with the actual
state of the tunnel.
iii.
For future study, it is recommended that the tunnel analysis can be performed
in PLAXIS-3D TUNNEL software. It is because the program considered the
3D analysis environment, which represents the tunnel with the actual
condition.
iv.
This study had concluded its objective to identify the resistance capability of
SMART Tunnel against earthquake loading. Therefore, it could be expanded
with the usage of another structural analysis program.
73
REFERENCES
1-
Chopra A.K.(2000). “Dynamics of Structure: Theory and Applications to
Earthquake Engineering. ”Prentice Hall.
2-
Darby, A. and Wilson, R.( 2006). “Design of The SMART Project, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.” Proceeding of International Conference and Exhibition
on Tunneling and Trenchless Technology, 7-9 March 2006, Subang,
Selangor, Malaysia.
3-
Ting, W.H., Ooi,T.A. and Tan, B.K. (2006). “Tunneling Activities In
Malaysia :1995-2005.” Proceeding of International Conference and
Exhibition on Tunneling and Trenchless Technology, 7-9 March 2006,
Subang, Selangor, Malaysia.
4-
Y.M.A, Hashash et. al.,.(2001). “Seismic design and analysis of underground
structures.” Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 16. 247-293
5-
SI Report (2006) “Soil Investigation Report For Stormwater Management
And Road Tunnel (SMART) Project, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia” Maxi Mekar
Sdn. Bhd.
6-
Ku Safirah Binti Ku Sulaiman (2008).”Seismic Vulnerability Of Smart
Tunnel” Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Bachelor Thesis.
7-
Adme, Z.G.(2004). “Analysis of NATM Tunnel Responses Due To
Earthquake Loading In Various Soils. ” Proceeding of the 2004 Earthquake
Engineering Symposium for Young Researchers.
8-
Kok Y.H and Kenny Lim S.H( 2006). “Construction Of Double Deck In
Stormwater Tunnel” Proceeding of International Conference and Exhibition
on Tunneling and Trenchless Technology, 7-9 March 2006, Subang,
Selangor, Malaysia.
74
9-
Thomas Telford (1996). “Practical Guide To Grouting Of Underground
Structures.” ASCE Press American Society Of Civil Engineers.
10-
Bernhard Maidl, Leonhard Schmid, Willy Ritz, Martin Herrenkrecht (2008).
“Hardrock Tunnel Boring Machine” Erast And Sohn A Wiley Company.
11-
ASCE (1984). “ Tunneling In Soil And Rocks”. Proceedings Of Two
Sessions At GEOTECH ’84 Sponsored By Geotechnical Engineers Division
Of The American Society Of Civil Engineers.
12-
ASCE (2006). “Soil Dynamic And Liquefaction 2000.”
Proceedings Of
Sessions Of Geo-Denves 2000 Sponsored By The Geo-Institute Of The
American Society Of Civil Engineers.
13-
T.M. Megav And J.V. Bartlett (1981). “Tunnels Planning, Design,
Construction Volume I”. John Wiley And Sons.
Appendix A Ground Accelaration Of Rapid KL
76
Appendix B Response Spectrum Of Rapid KL
77
Appendix C Pre-Processing – Analytical Modelling Concept
78
Appendix D Pre-processing – Dynamic Analysis
79
Appendix E Design Capacity Of SMART Tunnel Lining
- Calculation From SEER Group UTM -
80
Appendix E Design Capacity Of SMART Tunnel Lining
- Calculation From SEER Group UTM -
81
14,529 KNm
5,540 KN
Appendix F Design Capacity Of Upper And Lower Deck
82
Appendix G SMART Tunnel Drawing