Finite element modelling of load shed

and non-linear buckling solutions of

confined steel tunnel liners

10th Australia New Zealand Conference on

Geomechanics,
Brisbane Australia, October, 2007

Doug Jenkins - Interactive Design Services

Anmol Bedi – Mott MacDonald
Introduction
 Port Hedland Under Harbour Tunnel
 Lined with 250 m thick gasketed precast
concrete segments – now corroding
 Proposal to reline with steel backgrouted
liner
 Geotechnical and structural finite element
analyses
 Comparison with analytical solution
Topics
 The proposed remedial work
 Confined liner buckling
 Jacobsen Closed Form Buckling Solution
 Linear buckling FEA
 Application to the project
– Current stress state in tunnel liner
– Future Installation of Steel Liner
– Geotechnical FEA results
 Conclusions
Port Hedland Under Harbour
Tunnel
Material Properties

Material  (kN/m3) E (MPa) Cohesion (kPa)  

Fill 18 25 30 25 0.45
Marine Mud 18 5 30 25 0.45
Red Beds 20 23 55 32 0.3
Upper Conglomerate 22 1000 250 36 0.3
Sandstone 22 100 130 34 0.25
Lower Conglomerate 22 1000 55 32 0.3
Table 1: Material Properties
Closed Form Solutions
 Unrestrained solution similar to Euler
column buckling
 Rigid confinement restrains initial
buckling
 Gap between pipe and surrounding
material allows single or multi lobe
buckling to occur
 Buckling frequently forms a single lobe
parallel to the tunnel
Single Lobe Buckling
Comparison of buckling theories
 Berti (1998) compared theories by
Amstutz and Jacobsen
 Amstutz approach was simpler, but
assumed constants may be unconservative
 Also found that rotary symmetric
equations are unconservative compared
with Jacobsen
 Computerised analysis allows the more
conservative Jacobsen method more
general use
Jacobsen Equations

 sin  
1
 y  sin    p.Rrt sin    4 p.Rrt2  sin  sin   tan     
    
Em 2 Rrt  Em sin    Em sin  sin   

 sin   
3
12 p.Rrt3  9 2 
  2  1
  
Em  4   sin   
Jacobsen Equations
Jacobsen Equations

Value Error
y 250.0 0.0000

Value Error
Rrt 82.50 0.0000

Jacobsen Solution Unrestrained Buckling Solution

a 0.6755 Radians
b 0.6636 Radians
p 1.4960 MPa Pcr 89.0 kPa
 Parametric Study
Run No Variable Pressure Pipe Deformation,mm
1-3 Pipe deform. Uniform 0, 10, 20
4-6 Pipe deform. Hydro. 0, 10, 20
Run No Variable Pressure Gap Contact Contact Rock E Surcharge
Friction Stiffness Pressure
mm Factor MN/m GPa Ratio
7-10 Pipe/restraint gap Uniform 0, 1, 2, 5 0.5 10
11-14 Pipe/restraint gap Hydro. 0, 1, 2, 5 0.5 10
15-17 Contact friction Hydro. 2 0.7, 0.5, 0.3 10
18-20 Contact stiffness Hydro. 2 0.5 1, 5, 100
21-25 Rock stiffness Hydro. 2 0.5 100 10,1,0.25,0.1,0.05
26-29 Surcharge press. Hydro. 2 0.5 100 1 0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.2
Unrestrained Buckling Model
 Unrestrained Buckling
400

350
Uniform Pressure
300
Deflection, mm

250

200
Hydrostatic
150
Pressure
100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure, kPa

Undeformed 10 mm deformation 20 mm deformation

Undeformed 10 mm deformation 20 mm deformation
Unrestrained Buckling
Unrestrained Buckling
FE Model for Restrained Buckling
FE Model Detail
FE Model Detail
 Restrained Buckling - deflection
60

50

40
Deflection, mm

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pressure, kPa
0mm Gap, Uniform 1 mm Gap 2 mm Gap 5 mm Gap

0 mm Gap, Hydrostatic 1 mm Gap 2 mm Gap 5 mm Gap

Restrained Buckling - deflection
 Restrained Buckling - gap
1600

1400

1200
Critical Pressure, kPa

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Gap, mm

FEA-Uniform FEA-Hydrostatic Jacobsen

 Effect of contact friction and restraint
stiffness
1300
1200
Critical Pressure, kPa

1100
1000
900
800 Friction Values: 1=0.7; 2=0.5; 3=0.3
Contact stiffness: 1=100, 2=10.0, 3=5.0, 4=1.0 MN/m
700
Rock/Soil stiffness: 1=10, 2=1.0, 3=0.25, 4=0.1, 5 =0.05 GPa
600
500
0 1 2 3 4 5
Run No

Friction Contact Stiffness Rock/Soil Stiffness

 Effect of surcharge pressure
300.0

200.0

100.0
Stress, MPa

0.0

-100.0

-200.0

-300.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Pressure, kPa
0 kPa Top face 30 kPa 60 kPa 120 kPa

0 kPa bottom 30 kPa 60 kPa 120 kPa

Geotechnical Analysis – Current Stress
State
Geotechnical Analysis – Elastic Modulus v
Bending Moment

Elastic Modulus v Bending Moment

3
Bending Moment (kNm)

2.5
2
K0 = 0.3
1.5
ko=3
1
0.5
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
% of in-situ Elastic Modulus
Geotechnical Analysis –Bending Moment
transfer to Steel Liner
Geotechnical Analysis – Axial Load
Distribution in Steel
Axial Force (Ko=0.3)

700

650
Axial Force [kN]

600

550

500

450
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance Around Liner [m]
Summary – Parametric Study
 FE buckling analysis results in good agreement with
analytical predictions under uniform load for both
unrestrained and restrained conditions.
 Under hydrostatic loads the unrestrained critical pressure
was greatly reduced, but there was very little change for
the restrained case.
 FE results in good agreement with Jacobsen for gaps up
to 20 mm.
 Varying restraint stiffness had a significant effect, with
reduced restraint stiffness reducing the critical pressure.
 A vertical surcharge pressure greatly increased the
critical pressure, with the pipe failing in compression,
rather than bending.
 Variation of the pipe/rock interface friction had little
effect.
Summary – Geotechnical Analysis
 The coefficient of in-situ stress (K0) and the soil or rock
elastic modulus both had an effect on the axial load in the
steel liner.
 Since plasticity had developed around the segmental liner
further deterioration of the concrete segments resulted in
only small further strains in the ground.
 The arching action of the ground and the small increase
in strain resulted in increased axial load in the concrete
segments and steel liner, but negligible bending moment
transferred to the steel liner.
Conclusions
 For the case studied in this paper the Jacobsen
theory was found to be suitable for the design of
the steel liner since:
– It gave a good estimate of the critical pressure under
hydrostatic loading
– Deterioration of the concrete liner was found not to
increase the bending moments in the steel liner
significantly
 In situations with different constraint stiffness or
loading conditions the Jacobsen results could be
either conservative or un-conservative.
 Further investigation of the critical pressure by
means of a finite element analysis is therefore
justified when the assumptions of the Jacobsen
theory are not valid.