International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 6, June-2015 905

ISSN 2229-5518

Various Methods of Tunnel Lining Design in

Elastically Embedded Soil
Vijay Bhushan Gupta ,Research Scholar, Sunrise University, Alwar & Dr. M.P.Jakhanwal ,Prof & HoD Civil,BIT,Meerut
AbstractIn this research paper, the authors have dealt the various methods of Tunnel Lining design in elastically embedded soil and compared
them. For the design of tunnel lining in elastically embedded soil , Zurabov and Bougayeva assume a continuous monolithic tunnel lining as a ring and
thus take into account the support offered by the ground in the form of an elastic foundation. This method is considerably more accurate than the Da-
vidov's method because has not considered the elastic subgrade reaction of subsoil. Davidov while calculating the stresses in ring neglects the effect
of the lateral earth reaction and also the deflection at the horizontal diameter. Further A.M. Muir Wood and Morgan has also worked out empirical
methods for solutions of ring design in elastically embedded soil. Out of the empirical methods in design of tunnel lining considered as a monolithic
ring, Zurabov & Bougayeva method gives better approximate results, although for accurate results 3D Finite Element method may be adopted.

Index Terms Bougayevas Method of Tunnel Lining design, Davidovs Method of Tunnel Lining Design, Tunnel Lining design in Elastically Embed-
ded Soil, Zurabovs Method of Tunnel Lining Design.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

T
2 2
Mmax = +
he article compares the various methods of Tunnel Lin- 6
Where , E = E / 1 12 for a continuous lining.
ing design in elastically embedded soil by empirical
methods. The reduction of uo resulting from the stiffness of the lining
leads to the following relationship between M max & p o

IJSER
1+ 3 4 2 2
M max .( ) =+
9 6
1.1 TUNNELS ELASTICALLY EMBEDDED IN THE SUB-
SOIL (= ) 3
Where =
It is an approximate method while considering the elastic (1+ )(56)

embedding of the tunnel into the subsoil into full account. It 2 2 EI (1+ )(56)
Po ro
is assumed that the embedded soil material around the tun- Thus M max = +
6 EI (1+ )(56)+ 2 3 r3
o Ec
nel is elastic and in it the reactions are proportional to pene-
trations, that is, the equation of Winkler-Schwedler is valid
The stiffness ratio Rs represents the ratio of the stiffness of
i.e. the tunnel lining to that of the surrounding ground. Thus can
q = c. h , where q = the pressure acting at right angles on be calculated as,
the perimeter face of tunnel.
h = the maximum horizontal deformation of the circular 3 (1+ )(56 ) 9
section of tunnel due to combinations of external loads and Rs = =
3 3 3 4
ground reaction and c = the coefficient of the subgrade And the reduction in bending moment to be carried by the
reaction. lining is in relation to its flexibility and therefore we have.
1
M max = + 2 2 [Rs/( 1 + Rs)]
6
1.2 THE CIRCULAR TUNNEL IN ELASTIC GROUND: Where r o = radius to extrados of tunnel lining.
A.M. MUIR WOOD :
p o = excess of p on vertical axis over p on horizontal axis
p = normal pressure between ground and lining.
This design method is applied to changes of loading in the
= ratio of radius of lining centroid (= .r o ) to that of extra-
ground. Taking into account the stiffness of the lining and
dos.
the loading transmitted to the ground around the extrados,
Rs= Stiffness factor. Ec= Young's modulus for ground.
starting from an applied normal load to the lining. Where P0
and P v are horizontal and vertical earth reactions and an- E = Young's modulus for lining replaced by 2 1 1
gle of repose respectively. Stress P is, = poissons ratio for lining. 1 = poissons ratio for ground

P = p v - 2 (1 cos 2 ).
1.3 Morgan : 2.0 ZURABOV & BOUGAYEVAS METHOD

He showed that from consideration of change in curvature At any point of the underground subsoil for the tunnel, the
around the tunnel, the induced maximum bending deformation is dependent on surrounding soil embedding
moment can be calculated as follows: pressure. The reaction provided by the soil is taken as a se-

Mmax = + 3 2 2 ries of independently acting elastic supports. These are two

basic assumptions of elastically embedded tunnel design.
But the corresponding maximum moment applied by the
There are two similar empirical methods of designing the
ground loading is,

IJSER 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 6, June-2015 906
ISSN 2229-5518
first is that developed by ZURABOV & BOUGAYEVA and
Mo'= cos ( . sin sin ) =
1
. 2
2
the second is that of DAVIDOV.
/ .

2. 1 ZURABOV & BOUGAYEVA'S METHOD: CALCU- And adopting the notation. = 2 ; Mo =

1
LATIONS . .. 2
2
For the design of the tunnel lining in elastically embedded
subsoil, Bougayeva developed a simple empirical method
The moment where /4 <</2 can be worked as,
which provides an approximate but quick solution.
This method takes the elastic embedment into account by de-
termining the approximate values of the elastic reactions so 1
that they satisfy the following criteria: " = . . 2 sin( ) .
2 /4
i)The condition of soil embedding pressure equilibrium and
ii)The condition which states that the displacements of the
tunnel and of the subsoil embedment at the Springing line =-
1
. . 2 / cos2 sin( ) . .
are equal. Thus only at these two diametrically opposite 2 4

points, magnitude of the elastic reaction is correct. At any

other point the magnitude and distribution of the reaction 1 1
= . . 2 . ( cos 2 + 0.4714 (sin cos )
are arbitrarily assumed values, which, however, are close to 2 3

their real values. For the distribution of the subgrade reaction

the uniformly distributed vertical loading is considered. Typ- And in the third section where /2<< the moment can be
ical values of this diagram are given by the following expres-
sions: computed as follows:
If is less than 450 ; the reaction is zero.( is the angle be-

IJSER
tween half ring top (Crown) and bottom and can vary from 0
The forces transmitted from the upper sections are represent-
degree to 180 degrees and is the angle of repose.)
If 450 is less than is less than 900 ; q. = c v cos 2 ed by the resultant of their vertical and horizontal components
If 900 is less than is less than 1800 then the value of q is
and a moment.
q. = c v sin2 + c f .cos 2
The structure is analyzed as a statically indeterminate struc-
ture to the third degree and, therefore, further two equations = + (1 sin )
are required to determine the unknown values of c v & c f
.These are the equations expressing the equilibrium of the + cos sin( ) .
forces, and the equation in which the horizontal deflection of /2
the ring is equated to the compression of the soil at this
point. 1
For analysis, the ring is reduced to a determinate structure In this expression = - . . 0.1381 . .
2
by cutting it at the crown. Then by the application of the
moment X 1 and forces X 2 and X 3 at the elastic centre, the re-
duced structure is made to act as the continuous, indetermi- Pv = . . + /2 . . . . = .(+ 0.1381 .. ) and the
/4
nate structure. Because of symmetry the force X 3 will be zero.
X 1 and X 2 are determined from the condition of zero dis- value of = /2 . . . . = 0.4714 ..
/4
placement at the crown as per the following equations:
X 1 a 11 + a 01 = 0
Substituting these values into the expression for 0 and
X 2 a 22 + a 02 = 0
Because of the symmetry, the displacement factors are integrating: " = . (sin + 0.5 1) +
calculated for the half section only. 1
2
1 (0.4714 cos 0 .19535 sin + 2 + 0.5) +
11 = = 6

2
2 .3 2 . 3 (0.5 .1667 cos 2 0.6667 sin )
22 = = 2 =
2
The coefficients a 01 , a 02 are expressed as functions of c v and
c f . Then writing the expressions for a 01 and a 02
The moment is determined first for the statically determinate
half ring from the external loading. The half ring is divided 1
into the sections and the moments for each segment are de- 01 =
=
.
termined separately.
There are no reactions within the zone where 0 << / 4. 2
02 = = .

IJSER 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 6, June-2015 907
ISSN 2229-5518
/4 /2
= . 3 [0.5 (1 ) 0.82807 0.11111 ]
01 = ( + " + " )
/4 /2

On substituting these value we obtain from above;

And taking the appropriate substitution

. 2 c. . + 0.06937 = (0.06831 + 0.04167 )
a 01 = [ (1.1781 0.5708) + 1.0899 . + .. .3

0.11875 ] 0.017778

2
and
a 02 = cos =
2
(p + 0.1381 + ( 2 +
/4

cos . + /2

/4/2

" cos . + . cos . 2 . ) cos = 0
/2

.3 2
Thus a 01 = -

[ 0.5 0.82352 0.11111 ] or, p-0.1933 c. . = 0
3 3

Writing these values of a 01 , a 02 , a 11 and a 22 we get : Writing the above equation into (c ) equation and rearrang-
ing it we have.
X 1 = . [(0.375 -0.18169) + 0.34694 c + 0.03778 ]

IJSER
0.041671 (1+) (1+)
X 2 = . [(0.21221 -0.31831) + 0.52427 c + 0.07073 ] c. = ; . = [1.5 0.0122 + 0.06416]
(+0.06416)

To determine and two additional equations must be

established; From where the expressions for X 1 and X 2 will become

= 0 + X 1 1 + X2 2 1+
X 1 = p . [0.375 0.125 + 0.014 + 0.06416]

And the sum of the vertical components of all the forces is

equal to zero i.e. Y =0 X 2 = p . [0.21221( 1) + 0.021
1+
+ 0.06416]

The value 0 is the displacement of a point of the statically

determinate structure located at the horizontal diameter and Knowing X 1 and X 2 the stresses at any point of the ring are
caused by the external loadings on the structure. Similarly
thus
1 2 represent the displacement of the same point due
to the action of the unit moment X 1 = 1 t-m and of the unit
force X 2 = 1 t-m respectively. M = Mo + X 1 X 2 . r cos

1
1 = 1 = 1 ; = N = No + X 2 cos
1

Thus 1 =
1
2 . cos . = +
2
2 = Writing into these equations the value of X 1 and X 2 ,the mo-
ments and normal forces can be derived at an arbitrary point
2

1
of the ring which shall be as per the following expressions:
2 ; 2 =

M = p . [ + + `1 (1 + )]
1 3
2 = 3 2
/2
= 4 N = p [ + + (1 + )]

1 2
Thus the tabulated values for A, B, C, D, F and G.
0 = = cos .
/2
1
n= ; =
+ 0.06416 3 .
IJSER 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 6, June-2015 908
ISSN 2229-5518

ut =
, where e is the loading

H i = thickness of the earth column considered to be com-

pressed.
E o = modulus of compressibility of soil.
TABLE 1 The value of e is that value of the horizontal loading by which
the compression of the soil just begins;
BURAGOVS CO-EFFICIENTS
u p + u 2 . e =0 ; e = 2
Substituting the value of u p and u 2 we get ; e = 1.19 p
A B C D F G
iv) The Then e 2 is determined, utilizing the expression that the
=0 .1628 .0872 -.007 .2122 -.2122 .021 deflection of the structure must be equal to the compression of
the soil u p + e 2 u 2 = u t . e 2
/4 -.025 .025 -.0084 .15 .35 .01485

/2 -.125 -.125 .00825 0 1 .00515 .4
Thus e 2 = = 12101
2 + .4
3/2 .025 -.025 .00022 -.15 .90 .0138 0 1440

.0872 .1628 -.0084 -.2122 .7122 .0224

Having determined e 2 all external loads are known and thus
both the moments and the axial forces in the structure can be
2.2 DAVIDOV'S METHOD : CALCULATIONS calculated.
Another main difference between Davidov and other methods
For the analysis of circular tunnel sections Davidov also considering the elastic embedment of the tunnel section is that

IJSER
developed and approximate method in which his assumption he does not use the coefficient of subgrade reaction to deter-
as to the distribution of ground reaction is similar to those mine the component of the soil but calculates in the way set-
made by Zurabov and Boygayeva . The ground reaction is tlement analysis is done. When determining Hi , Davidov
expressed as a second degree trigonometric function. For the assumed an active zone limited by the condition that there is
case of a uniformly distributed vertical load the external the maximum value of soil stresses due to lateral pressure
forces acting on a circular ring section i.e. the lateral active which just attains 120% of the over burden pressure,
earth pressure e 1 is assumed to have a similar shape as the max = 1.2 geol = A.e
distribution of the lateral earth resistance e 2 .
The corresponding values of e and A are tabulated by him.
i) The stresses in the ring are determined, neglecting the effect
of the lateral earth reaction and also the deflection at the hori-
zontal diameter. 3.0 CONCLUSION
Thus Davidov eliminates the use of coefficient of subgrade
reaction and it is not recommended even for approximate cal-
Stress due to active earth pressure e 1 , u p = culations. A.M. Muir Wood has extensively done research

work on elastically embedded soil and tunnel lining design by
Where M p = the moment due to external load his empirical method is more closer to accurate values than
Bougayeva or Davodovs methods. Though for accurate re-
M H = the moment caused by the load sults 3D model simulation and computer based software uti-
lizing Finite Element Method should be adopted.
H = 1 t.
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
4
Thus up = The authors wish to thank Dr. Anup Pradhan, Direc-
12
tor Research , Sunrise University , Alwar for ex-
tending his support for the paper.
ii) The stress, due to the horizontal load e 2 are calculated and
the horizontal deflection u 2 of the structure is determined for
101 4 5 RERERENCES
this load condition as : u2 = - .
1440
[1] A.M. Muir-Wood: The circular tunnel in elastic ground; Gotechnique, Vol-
iii) Next the compression of the soil, u t , caused by the initial ume 25, Issue 1, 01.03.1975, pages 115-127, ISSN: 0016-8505
Horizontal pressure e is calculated at the line of the [2] Fritz Gruebl , Segmental Ring Design , New Challenges with high Tunnel
horizontal diameter. Diameter
[3] Karoly Szechy , The Art of Tunnelling.

IJSER 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 6, June-2015 909
ISSN 2229-5518
[4] Leca, E.; New, B.: Settlements induced by tunneling in Soft
Ground.Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22 (2007) 119149
[5] Maidl, B.; Herrenknecht, M.; Maidl, U.; Wehrmeyer, G.: Mechanized Tunnel-
ling. 2nd Edition. Verlag Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2011

IJSER
Ist Author : VIJAY BHUSHAN GUPTA
Email/Contact no. : vbgbhu@gmail.com
phone 9871655204. India.
Qualifications: B.Tech (Civil) & M.Tech (Civil) IIT Delhi.
Presently : Research Scholar in Sunrise University, Alwar.

2nd Author Prof(Dr) M.P.Jakhanwal,

Prof & Head of Civil Engineering , BIT,Meerut

Correspondence Author : Vijay Bhushan Gupta

Email : vbgbhu@gmail.com

IJSER 2015
http://www.ijser.org