Lts GCC Nat Sma 180001 A

Mumbai
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

MUMBAI METRO LINE‐3 (Colaba‐Bandra‐Seepz)‐ Package‐07
Report on:
PRELIMIANRY DESIGN‐SUPPORT DETAILS FOR
PLATFORM TUNNEL & ASSOCIATED CROSS
PASSAGE (TYP.) AT MAROL NAKA STATION
Ref. No: LTS‐GCC‐NAT‐SMA‐180001‐A
Contractor: Consultant:
L&T‐STEC MML‐3 UGC‐07

AMBERG STUP JV
Amberg Engineering AG
STUP Consultant Pvt. Ltd.
(Incorporated in Switzerland with limited liability)
P-11, Darga Road
Unit No.–204, II Floor, Solitaire Plaza, MG Road,
Kolkata – 700 017
Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana)
Phone: 40109797. Fax: [91-33] 2280 7531
Ph: +91 124 4881000
e-mail :Kolkata@stupmail.com
www.amberg.ch
OWNER: Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRC)
EPC CONTRACTOR: L&T-STEC JV
DDC CONSULTANT: Amberg - STUP JV
PROJECT: Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ): Contract-UGC-07

(Design & Construction of Underground Stations at Marol Naka, MIDC & SEEPZ & associated Tunnels)
TITLE: PRELIMIANRY DESIGN-SUPPORT DETAILS FOR PLATFORM TUNNEL AND ASSOCIATED

CROSSPASSAGE(TYP.) AT MAROL NAKA STATION
REF.: LTS-GCC-NAT-SMA-180001-A TOTAL PAGES:110 ATTACHEMENTS: 3
DATE FOR SUBMISSION: 2018 / 07/ 18
Final Date
Engineering
of Rev No Author Own Comp. Check Quality Check Cross Check
Manager
Completion
Name Sign Name Sign Name Sign Name Sign Name Sign
PG A.D R.S. N.M.A A.C

2018/07/18 A
L&T-STEC JV APPROVAL:
Name: Position: Signature:
Date: ____ / __ / __
Mandatory distribution last revision:

Name: Position Name: Position Name: Position Name: Position
Reason for LAST REVISION or ref. Non Conformance:

REPORT:- PD _SUPPORT DETAILS FOR PLATFORM TUNNEL AND ASSOCIATED CROSSPASSAGE(TYP.)
REF: LTS-GCC-NAT-SMA-180001-A
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Design limitations ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of the document ............................................................................................. 1
2 DESIGN STANDARDS AND REFERENCES .................................................................. 1
3 DESIGN OF PRIMARY SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR PLATFORM TUNNELS ................... 4
3.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Determination of Ground Behaviour.......................................................................... 4
3.3 Empirical Method ...................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Numerical Analysis of Platform Tunnel using RS2.................................................... 9
4 PROPOSED PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR PLATFORM TUNNEL ................................... 35
5 DESIGN OF PRIMARY SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR STATION CROSS PASSAGE ...... 36
5.1 General ................................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Empirical Method .................................................................................................... 36
5.3 Numerical Analysis of Cross passage using RS2 ................................................... 38
6 PROPOSED PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR CROSS PASSAGE TUNNEL ....................... 44
7 PROPOSED PERMANENT SUPPORT ......................................................................... 45
9 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 46
10 MONITORING ................................................................................................................ 46
11 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OPTIONS .................................................................. 49
11.1 Option 1 .................................................................................................................. 49
11.2 Option 2 .................................................................................................................. 55
11.3 Option 3 .................................................................................................................. 61
12 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 67
- Page i -
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Basic categories of Behaviors Types ........................................................................ 5
Figure 3.2: Estimate of tunnel support based on the Tunnelling Quality Index Q ....................... 8
Figure 3.3: Plan view of Marol Naka Station showing location of section considered in the
analysis. ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.4: Station excavation support details at Section AA –Marol Naka Station Box A........ 13
Figure 3.5: Phase 2 Model; Numerical model used in analysis- Case 1Tunnel in Grade III rock.
.................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.6: Phase 2 Model; Numerical model used in analysis- Case 2 Tunnel in Grade II rock.
.................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.7: Chart from Vlachopoulos and Diederichs ................................................................ 30
Figure 3.8: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation on Station Box with NATM in
Volcanic Breccia grade III rock . ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 3.9: Support capacity plot for 150mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade III rock u.
.................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.10: Vertical displacement of ground at final stage in Volcanic Breccia grade III rock, uy.
.................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.11: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation on Station Box with NATM in
Volcanic Breccia grade II rock u. ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 3.12: Support capacity plot for 100mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock u
.................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.13: Vertical displacement of ground at final stage in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock. . 34
Figure 5.1: RS2 Model for Rock Grade-III ................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.2: RS2 Model for Rock Grade-II .................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.3: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation Cross Passage in Volcanic
Breccia grade III rock . ............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 5.4: Support capacity plot for 150mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade III rock u.
.................................................................................................................................................... 41
.................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 5.6: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation Cross Passage in Volcanic
Breccia grade II rock . .............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 5.7: Support capacity plot for 100mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock u
.................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 5.8: Vertical displacement of ground at final stage in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock. ... 43
Figure 10.1: Typical Instrumentation Scheme ........................................................................... 47
Figure 10.2: Typical Instrumentation Scheme for Cross Passage ............................................ 48
- Page ii -
Figure 11.1: Plan and Section-Stage-1 (Option-1) .................................................................... 50
Figure 11.10: Plan and Section-Stage-4 (Option-2) .................................................................. 59
List of Tables
Table 3.1: RMR and respective Q value for rock grade likely to encountered during excavation ....... 6
Table 3.2: ESR values for different type of structures Barton et al (1974) ....................................... 7
Table 3.3: Maximum unsupported span calculated from Barton et al (1980) for different rock mass
grades ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Table 3.4: Primary Support System from Barton’s Chart for different rock mass grades ................... 8
Table 3.5: Primary Support System from for different rock mass grades .......................................... 9
Table 3.6: Design parameters adopted, from /16/ ...................................................................... 11
Table 3.7: Phase 2 Model; strut levels and soil/rock layering details.......................................... 14
Table 3.8: Material Parameters- Shotcrete ................................................................................. 16
Table 3.9: Parameters for structural elements in RS2 model – Case i (“Linear Elastic”)............ 17
Table 3.10: Parameters for structural elements in RS2 model – Case ii- Breccia Grade II ........ 18
Table 3.11: Modelling stages in RS2. ......................................................................................... 20
Table 3.12: Construction sequence for NATM tunnel with Station Box adopted in
analysis(*Please refer RS2 file for detailed modelling stages) .................................................... 29
- Page iii -
Table 4.1: Summary of support recommendation for Platform Tunnel ....................................... 35
Table 5.1: Estimation of Q value for Rock Grade likely to encountered during excavation .............. 36
classes ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5.3: Primary support system from Barton’s Chart for different rock mass grades .................. 37
Table 5.4: Primary support system for different rock mass grades ................................................. 38
Table 6.1: Summary of support recommendation for Cross Passage Tunnel ............................ 44
Table 7.1: Material properties for permanent lining........................................................................ 45
Table 10.1: Trigger Levels for Convergence Measurement........................................................ 47
ANNEXURE
Annexure-I: Platform Tunnel Design Calculations and Results.
Annexure-II: Cross Passage (TYP.) Design calculation and Results.
Drawings
- Page iv -
1 INTRODUCTION
Mumbai is the financial capital of India and Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) is one of the
fast growing metropolitan regions in India. Today’s major challenge in this region is to provide
connectivity and promote growth by providing adequate inputs to the infrastructure which would
improve the quality of life of the residents. In order to improve the overall traffic and
transportation scenario in Mumbai it has been identified that metro model as efficient,
economically viable and environment friendly mass transport system. Currently the Mumbai
Metro Line 3 (CBS 32.5 km: Colaba – Bandra - SEEPZ) is being implemented by MMRC
(Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation).
M/s L&T –STEC JV has been awarded the order for Design and Construction of Underground
Stations at Marol Naka, MIDC, SEEPZ and associated tunnels on Colaba–Bandra–Seepz
(Contract No. UGC 07) by MMRC.
L&T has appointed AMBERG-STUP JV as Consultants for the design stages of the project.
1.1 Design limitations

The validity of the presented calculations is limited to the boundary conditions and information
known and valid at the time of preparing this document. Any subsequent change in these
boundary conditions or updating of presently known information, such as ground characteristics,
design parameters, etc., will require a check of the applicability of this calculation.
Information about the stratigraphy and characteristic ground properties is in section 3.
1.2 Scope of the document

Preliminary analysis is carried out for design of Platform tunnel and cross passage (typ.) support
giving due consideration to available geological and geotechnical parameters and further
evaluating the necessary amount of external supports required to make the NATM tunnels
stable. The present document describes the requirement of rock support and respective
settlements of ground due to construction of the NATM tunnels.
A typical critical section of station Box A with platform tunnel(refer fig .3.3 section A-A) and
biggest cross passage has been used for preliminary analysis and design in present report.
Detailed Design stage will cover other section for support derivation and optimization based on
preliminary design approval.
This report also describes the options for preliminary construction methodology for enlargement
of TBM tunnels into platform tunnels.
2 DESIGN STANDARDS AND REFERENCES

Indian Design Standards
/1/ IS456: 2000 Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete
/2/ IS 875: 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and
structures
/3/ IS 2911: 2010 Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations.
- Page 1 -
International Standards
/4/ BS EN 1990. Eurocode 0: Basis of structural
/5/ BS EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures.
/6/ BS EN 1997. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Project-related References
/7/ Tender Documents. Part 2 (2/4) Employer’s Requirements. November 2014.
/8/ Tender Documents. Interim Consultancy for Mumbai Metro Line III (Colaba-Bandra-
SEEPZ): Geotechnical factual report. November 2014.
SEEPZ): Geotechnical Interpretative Report. MM3-CBS-UGC-07. December 2013.
SEEPZ): Design Basis Report for Tunnel and Stations. December 2012.
SEEPZ): Preliminary design report. October 2013.
/12/ “Factual Report: Geotechnical investigation report for Mumbai Metro Phase 3 Package
7”. SOILTECH, 27th October 2016.
/13/ LTS-GCC-GEO-P07-170001-B “Bored Tunnel- Geotechnical Interpretative Report”,
/14/ LTS-GCC-TUN-P07-170001-A0 “Definitive Design for Segmental lining”, May 2017
/15/ LTS-GCC-STR-SMA-180002-A, Definitive Design- Temporary Structure- Secant Pile for
Marol Naka Station Box A.
/16/ LTS-GCC-GEO-SMA-170003-A, Geotechnical Interpretative Report- Marol Naka
Station- Box
Bibliography
/17/ Panet, M. (2001). Recommendations on the convergence -confinement method,
Association Francese des Travaux en Souterrain (AFTES). '
/18/ Potts, D.M., and Addenbrooke T.I., (1997). "A structure's influence on tunneling induced
ground movements". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering, 125: 1 09-125.
/19/ Rowe, RK, and Kack G.J., (1983). "A theoretical examination of the settlements induced
by tunnelling: four case histories". Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 299-314.
/20/ Anagnostou, G. & Kovári, K. (1996), "Face stability conditions with Earth Pressure
Balanced shields", Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 11 (2), 165-173.
/21/ Kalamaras, G.S., Xu, S. Russo, G. and Grasso, P. 1999, “Estimating the reliability of
the primary support for a given tunnel section,” Proc. 37th US Rock Mechanics
Symposium, Vail Rocks, Vail, Colorado, USA.
/22/ Wittke.W. 2007. Stability analysis and design for mechanized tunneling. Edited by WBI.
Aachen. Germany.581p.
- Page 2 -
/23/ Guglielmetti V., Grasso P., Mahtab A. & Xu S., "Mechanized tunneling in urban areas.
Design methodology and construction control", 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London,
UK
/24/ British Standard BS 7385-2:1993 "Evaluation and measurement for vibration in
buildings - Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration"
/25/ British Standard BS 7385-1:1990 ISO 4866:1990 "Evaluation and measurement for
vibration in buildings - Part 1: Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of
their effects on buildings"
/26/ Rankin W.J., "Ground movements resulting from urban tunneling predictions and
effects", 1988
/27/ Franzius J.N.: Behaviour of buildings due to tunnel induced subsidence, October 2003
/28/ ITA/AITES Report: Settlements induced by tunneling in Soft Ground, 2006
/29/ Attewell P.B., Yeates J. and elby A.R., “Soil Movements induced by Tunnelling and their
Effect on Pipelines and Structures”, 1986
/30/ Zaw Zaw Aye et al, (2006). Ground Movement Prediction and Building Damage Risk-
Assessment for the Deep Excavations and Tunneling Works in Bangkok Subsoil
/31/ Bowles J. E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design. 4th edition, McGRAW-Hill
International Book Company, Singapore.
- Page 3 -
3 DESIGN OF PRIMARY SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR PLATFORM TUNNELS
3.1 General
From the examination of the available data, rock mass predominantly weathering Grade II and
III are expected to be encountered during excavation of platform tunnels. Hence, the analyses
for both these grades have been conducted and described in the following sections.
3.2 Determination of Ground Behaviour

The ground behaviour is evaluated for the full cross sectional area without considering any
modifications including the excavation method or sequence and support or other auxiliary
measures. The evaluated project specific ground behaviours shall be assigned to basic Ground
Behaviour Types. When considering long underground structures (tunnels) an unsupported
cavity without supporting influence of the face has to be assumed. Sequential excavation steps
are not considered in this phase.
The following influencing factors are usually considered for the evaluation of the Ground
Behaviour:
o Ground Type (GT)
o Virgin stress conditions
o Shape and size of the underground structure (final shape and size)
o Position of underground structure in relation to surface or existing structures
o Relative orientation of the underground structure and discontinuities as a basis for
kinematical analyses, and the assessment of the stress redistribution
o Boundaries between different ground types
o Ground water, seepage force, hydraulic head
For the determination of the ground behaviour the following evaluations are recommended:
o Kinematics: Kinematical analyses for the determination of discontinuity controlled

overbreak and sliding of wedges
o Ground utilization: evaluation of the ratio between the strength of the ground and the
spatial stress situation in the vicinity of the underground opening. Methods: analytical
and numerical methods.
o Failure mechanisms: possible failure mechanisms of the ground have to be analyzed
and described at least qualitatively (for example: spalling, shearing along
discontinuities as result of stress release, shear failure, etc.).
When influencing factors cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy, a parametric study
considering the spread of parameters shall be made. Analytical and/or numerical methods are
to be used, which provide appropriate modelling methods for the characteristics of the ground
types under the given boundary conditions.
- Page 4 -
Figure 3.1: Basic categories of Behaviors Types
The Ground Behaviours resulting from the analyses have to be assigned to one of the
categories listed above. It is expected for the Rock Grade II the platform tunnel opening will be
having behavior category 2 i.e. Potential of Discontinuity controlled block fall and Rock Grade III
will be having behavior category 3 i.e. Shallow Failure. Rock support need to be designed to
take care of these phenomenon.
Initially, for derivation of rock support for above ground behaviours empirical method is used.
Support derived from Empirical method is further used as input for numerical modelling where
interaction with the surrounding ground with the proposed support and system behaviours is
- Page 5 -
checked so that deformation due to tunnel excavation are with in permissible limits. Following
section suggests requirement of support based in Empirical method.
3.3 Empirical Method

Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q, proposed by Barton et al. (1974), is a well-known and widely
used system for determination of tunnel support requirements based on Rock Mass
characteristics. Q can be calculated based on empirical relationship available in literature.
Rock Mass Quality Index (Q) values measurement, can be derived based on RMR values
through appropriate correlations. In this case, several equations have been proposed by
different authors, normally with local value. Barton (1995) provides the following equation:
RMR = 15Log(Q)+50
As per reference /13/, the RMR values for Rock Grade-II and Rock Grade-III have been given
and based on above mentioned correlations Q can be calculated for these rock grade. The
calculated value of Q for these rock grade is given in table below.
Sr.No. DESCRIPTION RMR Q value.
1 Rock Grade – II 60-65 4.6-10
2 Rock Grade– III 43-53 0.3-1.5
Table 3.1: RMR and respective Q value for rock grade likely to encountered during excavation
Stand-up-time
An attempt has been made to derive the round length (maximum unsupported span) in such a
manner so as to have an optimum rate of advance as well as to attain sufficient stand-up-time.
The maximum unsupported span (corresponds to maximum round length) can be estimated
from:
Maximum span (unsupported) = 2 x ESR x Q0.4
The value of ESR is related to the intended use of the excavation and to the degree of security
which is demanded of the support system installed to maintain the stability of the excavation.
Barton et al (1974) suggests the following values for ESR:
Excavation category ESR
Temporary mine openings 3-5
Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for 1.6
- Page 6 -
hydro power (excluding high pressure
penstocks), pilot tunnels, drifts and headings
for large excavations.
Storage rooms, water treatment plants, minor 1.3

road and railway tunnels, surge chambers,
access tunnels.
Power stations, major road and railway 1.0

tunnels, civil defence chambers, portal
intersections.
Underground nuclear power stations, railway 0.8

stations, sports and public facilities, factories.
Table 3.2: ESR values for different type of structures Barton et al (1974)
Considering the Marol Naka station as an important structure, value of ESR as 0.8 is adopted.
Accordingly, the maximum unsupported span for both rock types is present in table below.
Sl. No. Description Maximum unsupported span (m)
1 Rock grade – II 4.8
2 Rock grade – III 1.7
grades
For Rock Grade-II the unsupported length is 4.8 m which is on higher side and is not advisable
to adopt during construction. The recommended unsupported length for Rock Grade-II may be
adopted as 2.5 m and for Rock Grade-III may be adopted as 1.5 m.
The minimum length, L of rock bolts has been estimated from the excavation width B and the
Excavation Support Ratio ESR as per Barton et al (1980) :
L= 2+ (0.15 x B) / ESR
From the above formula, minimum length, L of rock bolts has been determined to be 4.0 m
considering B as 10.8 m for platform tunnel. The above length of rock bolts may be optimized
based on numerical modelling and wedges that will be formed around the tunnel due to
discontinuities in the rock mass.
Based on Grimstad and Barton (1993)’s chart provided in figure below, support system can be
derived on an initial basis as given in Figure 3.2.
- Page 7 -
Figure 3.2: Estimate of tunnel support based on the Tunnelling Quality Index Q
Sr.No. Description Support category
Fibre reinforced shotcrete 75 -90mm and rock bolting

1 Rock grade – II
4m long @ 2m c/c
Fibre reinforced shotcrete 100-150mm and rock bolting

2 Rock grade – III
4m long @ 1.5m c/c
Table 3.4: Primary Support System from Barton’s Chart for different rock mass grades
- Page 8 -
Platform tunnel as an important structure and is to constructed in urban environment. It means
that support system need to be installed at early stages of deformation and primary support
system needs to be robust to tackle the deformation. Table below presents the primary support
system proposed for Rock Grade-II and Rock Grade-III. From report /16/, it is observed that
patches of Rock Grade-IV has been mentioned in geological profile. The noticed degraded
properties of rock mass are mainly due mechanical factures caused during drilling operations. If
any weak rock mass local patch is encountered during excavation, additionally lattice girder can
be used in such conditions. Typical details of rock support with lattice girders are added as Rock
Grade-IIIA. This support class will be further developed during detailed design stage after
gathering additional information of rock mass during station box excavation.
Following table shows the support proposed for different rock grade.
Sr.No. Description Support category
1 Rock Grade – II Fibre reinforced shotcrete 100mm and rock bolting

4m long @ 2m c/c
2 Rock Grade – III Fibre reinforced shotcrete150mm and rock bolting

4m long @ 1.5 m c/c
3 Rock Grade– IIIA ( Fibre reinforced shotcrete 150mm with lattice

applicable at patches with girders (Pantex-95-25-30 or equivalent) @1.0-1.5
weak rock conditions) m c/c and rock bolting 4m long @ 1.5 m c/c
Table 3.5: Primary Support System from for different rock mass grades
The primary support derived from empirical analysis is used as an initial input in numerical
modelling and actual support requirement is derived considering Tunnel geometry, geotechnical
parameters etc. in following section.
3.4 Numerical Analysis of Platform Tunnel using RS2

Most underground excavations are irregular in shape and are frequently grouped close to
other excavations. These groups of excavations can form a set of complex three
dimensional shapes. In addition, because of the presence of geological features such as
faults and dykes, the rock proper-ties are seldom uniform within the rock volume of
interest. Consequently, closed form solutions are of limited value in calculating the
stresses, displacements and failure of the rock mass surrounding underground
excavations. A number of computer-based numerical methods have been developed over
the past few decades and these methods provide the means for obtaining approximate
solutions to these problems.
- Page 9 -
It is recommended that, where the problem being considered is obviously three
dimensional, a preliminary elastic analysis be carried out considering 2D program. The
results can then be used to decide whether further three-dimensional analyses are
required or whether appropriate two-dimensional sections can be modeled using a
program such as PHASE2/RS2, a powerful but user-friendly finite element program that
generally meets the needs of most underground excavation design projects. It can be used
for a wide range of engineering design and includes support design, finite element slope
stability, Complex multi-stage models in weak or jointed rock.
Phase2/RS2 offers a wide range of support modeling options. Liner elements can be
applied in the modeling of shotcrete, concrete, steel set systems, retaining walls, piles,
multi-layer composite liners, geotextiles and more. Liner design tools include support
capacity plots which help to determine the safety factor of reinforced liners. Bolt types
include end anchored, fully bonded, cable bolts, split sets and grouted tiebacks. Material
models for rock and soil include Mohr-Coulomb, Generalized Hoek-Brown and Cam-Clay.
Assumptions:
1. The Phase2 model considered here, represents a Plane Strain analysis. A Plane
Strain model assumes that the excavation has infinite length in the out-of-plane
direction, and therefore the strain in the out-of-plane direction is zero.
2. The solution of the matrix representing the system of equations defined by the
model is performed by using Gaussian Elimination.
3.4.1 Geotechnical parameters

This section describes the soil and rock parameters used in the present analysis. These
parameters are extracted from report /16/ and /13/.
3.4.2 Geological Profile

The geological profile is according to report /16/ used for station box A design(critical
section- with 14.5m depth of pile). A weak rock has been interpreted in GIR at depth 18m to
22.5m due to less RQD values which is mainly due to mechanical factures. The tunnels will
mainly pass through volcanic Breccia GII/GIII overlain by Breccia GIV, residual Soil and Fill.
The derived profile will be as mentioned below:
- Fill: from GL to 2.0m deep
- Clay/ Residual soil Layer: from 2.0 to 6.0 m deep
- Breccia GIV: from 6.0 to 13.50 m deep
- Breccia GIII: from 13.50 -30m deep
- Breccia GII: from 30m deep
Two analysis has been carried out by changing the rock grade in which the tunnel is planned
to pass;
- Page 10 -
i. Case 1- Tunnel passing in Grade III- Volcanic Breccia
ii. Case 2- Tunnel passing in Grade II- Volcanic Breccia.
Following tables summarize the design parameters for different layers used in present
analysis.
Clay/
Material type Filled soil Residual soil Breccia IV Breccia III Breccia II
Color ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Unit weight 19 kN/m3 19 kN/m3 24 kN/m3 25 kN/m3 26 kN/m3
Young's modulus 10000 kPa 10050 kPa 144000 kPa 1.737e+006 kPa 7.032e+006 kPa
Poisson's ratio 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.25 0.2
Mohr- Mohr- Mohr-
Failure criterion Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Coulomb Coulomb Coulomb
Peak tensile strength 0 kPa 0 kPa 0 kPa 8 kPa 38 kPa
Residual tensile
0 kPa 0 kPa 0 kPa 8 kPa 38 kPa
strength
Peak friction angle 30 degrees 32 degrees 27 degrees 42 degrees 47 degrees
Peak cohesion 0 kPa 10 kPa 27 kPa 150 kPa 301 kPa
Material type Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic
Residual Friction Angle 30 degrees 32 degrees 27 degrees 42 degrees 47 degrees
Residual Cohesion 0 kPa 10 kPa 27 kPa 150 kPa 301 kPa
Hydraulic Permeability 1e-06m/s 1e-06m/s 1e-06m/s 1e-07m/s 1e-07m/s
K2/K1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3.6: Design parameters adopted, from /16/

The parameters listed here are extracted from /16/ GIR. The rock mass parameters listed in
table above are mainly applicable for disturbed / blasting affected area as disturbance factor 0.7
is used in derivation of these parameters.
3.4.3 Loads
Load considered in numerical analysis are as follows;
Surcharge load
A uniform load surcharge of 50 kPa on the ground is considered.
Ground Loads
For the assessment of ground pressure, the Finite Element Method is considered, with a
geotechnical modelling and soil parameters as mentioned in table 3.6
Ground water pressure
Loads due to water pressure shall be full hydrostatic pressure and be calculated using a density
of 10 kN/m3 for fresh water.
The groundwater level is assumed to be at surface level.
Grouting
- Page 11 -
Loads due to grouting shall be full hydrostatic pressure plus 0.5 bar and be calculated using a
density of 10 kN/m3 for fresh water.
3.4.4 Geometry
For preliminary design, critical section with lengthiest pile of station box A has been
considered in analysis for derivation of required support and associated displacement due
to NATM tunnel excavation. Following figures shows plan view of Marol Naka station and
typical arrangement of the proposed excavation support for station box A with14.5m piles
(maximum depth of pile in station box A). The section A-A is used in the analysis.
Box A Box B
A
Figure 3.3: Plan view of Marol Naka Station showing location of section considered in the analysis.
- Page 12 -
Figure 3.4: Station excavation support details at Section AA –Marol Naka Station Box A
3.4.5 Design software used

Analysis has been carried out using Phase2 Version 9.025 in order to model the staged
construction to assess the support requirement and ground movements due to the construction
of Platform tunnel in vicinity of Station.
The main assumptions made in numerical modeling for design of support system for the Tunnel
are as follows.
i. The geometry of the tunnel is the same along the length, permitting the three-
dimensional problem to be modeled in two dimensions as a plane-strain analysis.
ii. The rock mass surrounding the tunnel is homogenous, isotropic in all directions.
3.4.6 General model description

Figure 3.5 and 3.6 shows numerical models used for the present analysis. The model has
been based on typical section of Station box A with maximum depth of pile (14.5m) erected
in the area. Model has been developed considering the different layers in the area.
Elevation details of the different layers, strut level that are adopted in the present analysis
are extracted from approved report LTS-GCC-STR-SMA-180002-A and are as follows.
- Page 13 -
Table 3.7: Phase 2 Model; strut levels and soil/rock layering details.
The coordinates system in the model has been set up with the Y-axis coinciding with the vertical
axis in the model centre. The model is 200 meters long and 60 meters high.
The piles are modelled as “soil and interfaces” structural elements, with elastic properties.
The excavations sequence for Station box and NATM tunnel is simulated by 26 stages.
Gravity loading is considered for the analysis.
The standard boundary conditions have been applied in the model. It means that no horizontal
deformations are allowed in the vertical boundaries and no vertical deformations are possible in
the bottom edge of the model.
The uniform load representing surface loads of 50 kN/m2 is applied on the ground surface.
Figure below shows the Phase 2 model used in the analysis
It is considered that the excavation is carried out with the water level located at ground and for
every stage water level is lowered below the excavation level by about 0.5m-1m in station box
locally.
- Page 14 -
Figure 3.5: Phase 2 Model; Numerical model used in analysis- Case 1Tunnel in Grade III rock.
Figure 3.6: Phase 2 Model; Numerical model used in analysis- Case 2 Tunnel in Grade II rock.
3.4.7 Structural elements

a. Liners
In modelling different liners are used in form of concrete pile, struts, TBM liner, shotcrete ,
permanent liner etc. All the liner are modelled as standard beam. Details of liner used in the
analysis are listed down in tables below.
Shotcrete will be used as one of the preferred support element in Platform Tunnel. Shotcrete will
be applied directly on exposed excavated face after scaling operation so as to avoid free fall of
rock wedges and to provides initial strength to minimize rock mass deformation. Shotcrete with
- Page 15 -
steel fibre will be used in support grade B and C. Table summarizes strength and stiffness
parameters for shotcrete grade used in analysis.
Shotcrete grade Compressive strength Young’s modulus Steel Fibres
M30 30 N/mm2 27400 MPa 35kg/m3
Table 3.8: Material Parameters- Shotcrete

Liner properties used in the present analysis are listed in tables below;
- Page 16 -
Case i- Tunnel passing in Grade III- Volcanic Breccia- Liner details
Table 3.9: Parameters for structural elements in RS2 model – Case i (“Linear Elastic”).
- Page 17 -
Case ii.- Tunnel passing in Grade II- Volcanic Breccia- Liner Details
Table 3.10: Parameters for structural elements in RS2 model – Case ii- Breccia Grade II
- Page 18 -
.b. Pre-stressed anchors and Rock bolts
Pre-stressed anchors are used as one level of excavation support after excavation upto 9m.
The pre-stressed anchors are placed at 2.6m c/c.
Further rock bolts are used as support measure in rock for station box excavation and platform
tunnel excavation. Length of rock bolts in station box excavation is limited to 5m and placed at
2m c/c whereas rock bolts used for Platform tunnel excavation are proposed at 1.5m- to 1.8m
spacing and length varying from 6m to 8m so that atleast 4m bolts length stays beyond NATM
excavation profile . All rock bolts used have a tensile capacity of at least 150kN.
For design of retaining structure for station box excavation refer separate report “ LTS-GCC-
STR-SMA-180002-A”.
For stabilisation of Platform tunnel excavation, Rockbolts with following properties are proposed;
a. Min. diameter 25mm (according to IS 1786:2008) and anchor plate 150x150x10mm
b. Steel grade for rock bolt: Fe 500/ Fe500D
c. Tensile capacity: ≥ 150kN
3.4.8 Modelling stages

The excavation of station box and NATM tunnel is modelled as different stages in Phase 2 and
is presented in the following table. The deformation is reset after Stage 0.
Stage Description
1 Insitu Condition
2 Pile Installation
3 Excavate 1 m below 1st Strut
4 Install Strut 1
5 Excavate 1m below 2 nd Strut
6 Install Strut 2
7 Excavate 0.5m below Anchor
8 Install Pre-stressed Anchor (Pretension 40T)
9 Excavate 1m below 3 rd Strut
10 Install Strut 3
11 Excavate 2m in Rock- 1
12 Install Support
14 Install Support
- Page 19 -
16 Install Support
18 Install Support
20 Install Support
22 Install Support +Base Salb+ NATM Relaxation
23 NATM Exc and Heading Support
24 NATM Exc & Invert support+ Station wall Construction upto Mezzanine
25 Cast Mezzanine Slab+ Station Wall+ Backfill+ NATM Final lining
26 Uninstall Strut no 3
27 Station Wall + Backfill upto Concourse slab
28 Uninstall Anchors above concourse slab
29 Cast Concourse Slab + Station wall +Backfill
31 Station wall till top slab+Backfill+ Cast Top Slab
33 Backfill till ground level
34 Ground water builtup
35 Unequal grouting pressure on Concrete lining
Table 3.11: Modelling stages in RS2.
- Page 20 -
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROPOSED FOR TACKLING MORAL NAKA STATION
Typical construction sequence adopted in analysis for constructing Marol Naka station with NATM
tunnel is described below;
Stage Description Modelling stage
1 Insitu
Condition
2 Pile
Installation
3 Excavation 1
m below 1st
Strut level and
excavation of
TBM tunnel 1
- Page 21 -
4 Installation
of Strut 1
5 Excavation
1m below
2nd Strut
level
6 Installation
of Strut 2
- Page 22 -
7 Excavation
0.5m below
Anchor level
8 Installation
of Pre-
stressed
Anchor
(Pretension
40T) and
excavation
of TBM
tunnel 2
9 Excavation
1m below
3rd Strut
- Page 23 -
10 Installation
of Strut 3
11 Excavation
2m in Rock
12 Installation
of Rock
bolts
- Page 24 -
13 Excavation
2m in Rock
14 Installation
of Rock
bolts
15 Excavation
2m in Rock
- Page 25 -
16 Installation
of Rock
bolts
17 Excavation
2m in Rock
18 Installation
of Rock
bolts
- Page 26 -
19 Excavation
2m in Rock
20 Installation
of Rock
bolts
21 Excavation
2m in Rock
- Page 27 -
22 Install
Support
+Base Slab+
NATM
Relaxation
24 NATM
Excavation
and support+
Station Wall
upto
Mezzanine
level
25 Cast
Mezzanine
Slab+ Station
Wall+
Backfill+
NATM Final
lining
- Page 28 -
29 Concourse
Slab +
Station wall +
Backfill
33 Backfill till
ground level
34 Ground water
built-up+
Long term
condition
Table 3.12: Construction sequence for NATM tunnel with Station Box adopted in analysis(*Please refer
RS2 file for detailed modelling stages)
- Page 29 -
3.4.9 Relaxation of Tunnel using Core replacement method
To compute the tunnel deformation at the point of support installation, we’ll use the empirical
relationship developed by Vlachopoulos and Diederichs. To use the Vlachopoulos and
Diederichs method, we need two pieces of information from the finite-element analysis. We need
to know a) the maximum tunnel wall displacement far from the tunnel face, and b) the radius of
the plastic zone far from the tunnel face.
Both of these values can be computed from a plane strain analysis with zero internal pressure
inside the excavation. This internal pressure is reduced in each stage such that there is no
pressure in last stage representing it as excavated tunnel. The results from last stage are used
since there is zero internal pressure in this stage. From the last stage compute the maximum
wall displacement and the radius of plastic zone.
The following plot was created using the Vlachopoulos and Diederichs equations. The
equations can be found in the Kersten Lecture. Using this plot, we can easily estimate the
amount of closure prior to support installation from the plastic radius and displacement far from
the tunnel face.
Figure 3.7: Chart from Vlachopoulos and Diederichs
- Page 30 -
Radius of plastic zone is derived from finite element analysis and unsupported length as
evaluated for particular rock class, the value of closure by maximum closure can be obtained
using above chart. This will give the value of displacement to be allowed for the tunnel opening
before the installation of primary support system. This procedure will be used in Detailed design
stage. To simplify in present analysis, a conservative approach is used considering 30% of
relaxation. The amount of exact relaxation will be decided in Detailed design stage using above
described approach.
3.4.10 Platform Tunnel Analysis results

Two cases - Platform tunnel passing in grade III rock and Platform tunnel passing in Grade II
has been studied and the results have been depicted below;
i. Case 1- Tunnel passing in Volcanic Breccia-Grade III
Figure 3.8: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation on Station Box with NATM in Volcanic
Breccia grade III rock | |.
The maximum vertical displacement of NATM tunnel due to station box and tunnel excavation is
about 16mm whereas maximum vertical settlement at ground is about 30mm with proposed
support system. No major yielding of the bolts is seen in the analysis. Thus provided primary
support is found to be sufficient to safe guard the excavation as initial support. Following figure
shows support capacity plot for shotcrete used for stabilisation of opening.
- Page 31 -
Figure 3.9: Support capacity plot for 150mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade III rock |u|.
The final gross vertical displacement in NATM tunnel derived after installation of permanent
lining, station box construction and completion of backfilling is about 18mm whereas on ground
maximum vertical settlement approaches to 36mm in localised area. Effect of this settlement on
the surface structures will be studied in damage assessment report at DD stage and if required
necessary modifications will be made to mitigate the effect of construction of station on adjoining
structures. Following figure shows support capacity plot for shotcrete used for stabilisation of
opening.
- Page 32 -
ii. Case 2- Tunnel passing in Volcanic Breccia- Grade II
Figure 3.11: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation on Station Box with NATM in Volcanic
Breccia grade II rock |u|.
about 2mm whereas maximum vertical settlement at ground is about 25mm with proposed
support is found to be sufficient to safe guard the excavation as initial support. Following figure
shows support capacity plot for shotcrete used for stabilisation of opening.
Figure 3.12: Support capacity plot for 100mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock |u|
- Page 33 -
Figure 3.13: Vertical displacement of ground at final stage in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock.
The final gross vertical displacement in NATM tunnel derived after installation of permanent
lining, station box construction and completion of backfilling is about 3.5mm whereas on ground
maximum vertical settlement approaches to 33mm in localised area. Effect of this settlement on
the surface structures will be studied in damage assessment report at DD stage and if required
necessary modifications will be made to mitigate the effect of construction of station on adjoining
structures.
Here, it necessary to note that the present analysis is carried out considering the rock
parameters with disturbance factor of 0.7. In actual situation, the rock mass parameters with
disturbance factor will be in applicable to localised area around the opening and rock mass
parameters will be rather having much better behaviour that modelled in present analysis which
is an conservative approach. DD stage will consider the real situation that is foreseen in case
optimisation is required.
- Page 34 -
4 PROPOSED PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR PLATFORM TUNNEL

Based on numerical calculation, recommended support for Platform Tunnel in foreseen rock
grade is listed in Table below. The support system will be further modified during detailed design
stage based on any changes in the construction methodology and further exploration.
Rock Rock
Grade Support Mass Q Values Recommended Rock Support
Class Quality range
Grade II B Fair 4>Q >10 i. Systematic bolting: 25mm diameter, 4m

Rock long Fully Grouted Bolts beyond NATM
tunnel excavation profile @ 1.8m c/c
staggered in longitudinal and transverse
direction.
ii. Shotcrete: 100mm thick M30 steel fibre
reinforced shotcrete
Grade III C Very 0.3>Q >4 i. Systematic bolting: 25mm diameter, 4m

Poor/Po long Fully Grouted Bolts beyond NATM
or Rock tunnel excavation profile @ 1.5m c/c
direction.
Table 4.1: Summary of support recommendation for Platform Tunnel
Detailed analysis for additional provisions will be made in next stage of design (Detailed design
stage) based on rockmass information gathered during station box excavation. Comprehensive
face mapping will be carried out at station excavation stage. This mapping will be used an as
important input in analysis for formation of wedges due to the discontinuities in the area.
Requirement of additional support, length of rock bolts and the systematic bolting pattern will be
refined looking into the unwedge analysis. In addition to this, if weak rock class encounters
during station box excavation, additional support class will be analysed and rock support will be
designed to suit the condition.
- Page 35 -
5 DESIGN OF PRIMARY SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR STATION CROSS PASSAGE
5.1 General
There are 4 different type of cross passage foreseen connecting Station box with Platform
Tunnel and sizes are as mentioned below;
i. CP Type 1 - 6.4mx 9.6m
ii. CP Type 2 - 6.0mx 8.225m
iii. CP Type 3 - 3.8m x7.325m
iv. CP Type 4 - 3.0mx7.325m
In this preliminary design, largest cross passage CP Type1 is considered in analysis and design.
Other cross passage will designed at detailed design stage based on same methodology
considering additional information received from excavation of station boxes.
From the investigation results available, rock mass of weathering Grade II and III are expected
to be encountered during excavation of cross passage tunnels. Hence, the analyses for both
these grades have been conducted and described in the following sections.
5.2 Empirical Method

Rock Tunneling Quality Index,Q, proposed by Barton et al. (1974), is a well-known and widely
used system for determination of tunnel support requirements based on Rock Mass
characteristics. Based on reference /13/, the Rock Grade II and III are estimated to have
following Q values.
Sl. No. DESCRIPTION Q value.
1 Rock Grade – II 4.60-10
2 Rock Grade – III 0.3-1.5
Table 5.1: Estimation of Q value for Rock Grade likely to encountered during excavation
Stand-up-time
An attempt has been made to optimize the round length (maximum unsupported span) in such a
manner so as to have an optimum rate of advance as well as to attain sufficient stand-up-time.
The maximum unsupported span (corresponds to maximum round length) can be estimated
from:
Maximum span (unsupported) = 2 x ESR x Q0.4
Considering the cross passages of station as an important structure, Value of ESR as 0.8 can be
adopted.
- Page 36 -
The maximum unsupported span for both rock types is mentioned in table below.
Maximum unsupported span

Sl. No. DESCRIPTION
(m)
1 Rock Grade – II 3.0
2 Rock Grade – III 1.0
classes
For Rock Grade-II the unsupported length is 3.0 m which is on higher side and not advisable to
adopt during construction. The unsupported length for Rock Grade-II may be adopted as 2.5 m
and for Rock Grade-III may be adopted as 1 m.
The minimum length, L of rock bolts has been estimated from the excavation width B and the
Excavation Support Ratio ESR as per Barton et al (1980) :
L= 2+ (0.15 x B) / ESR
From the above formula, minimum length, L of rock bolts has been determined to be 4m for
cross passage. The above length of rock bolts may be optimized based on numerical modelling
and radius of plastic zone at around the tunnel.
Sufficient provision of shotcrete with steel fibres is also recommended to prevent spalling. Initial
layer of shotcrete is to be provided on a necessary manner to avoid failure of any loosened rock.
Based on Grimstad and Barton (1993)’s chart, support system is derived and listed in table
below.
Sl.No. DESCRIPTION Support category
Fibre reinforced shotcrete 75-90mm and rock

1 Rock Grade – II
bolting 4m long @ 2mc/c

2 Rock Grade – III
bolting 4m long @ 1.5mc/c
Table 5.3: Primary support system from Barton’s Chart for different rock mass grades
The obtained primary support is used as an initial input in numerical modelling and actual
support requirement is derived considering Tunnel geometry, geotechnical parameters.
From report /10/, it is observed that patches of Rock Grade-IV has been mentioned in geological
profile. The noticed degraded properties of rock mass are mainly due mechanical factures
caused during drilling operations. If any weak rock mass local patch is encountered during
excavation additionally lattice girder can be used in such conditions. Typical support foreseen in
- Page 37 -
such condition is added as Rock Grade-IIIA. This support grade will be further developed during
detailed design stage by which additional information of rock mass will be available from station
box excavation.
Following table shows the support proposed for different rock grade.
Sr.No Description Support category

1 Rock Grade – II
bolting 4m long @ 2mc/c
Fibre reinforced shotcrete 100-150mm and

2 Rock Grade – III
rock bolting 4m long @ 1.5mc/c
Fibre reinforced shotcrete 150mm with lattice

Rock Grade – IIIA girders (Pantex-95-25-30 or equivalent)
3 (applicable
at patches with weak rock @1.0-1.5 m c/c and rock bolting 4m long @
conditions) 1.5 m c/c
Table 5.4: Primary support system for different rock mass grades
5.3 Numerical Analysis of Cross passage using RS2

Numerical analysis for derivation of the primary support system have been analysed for two
cases:
a. For Rock Grade-III
b. For Rock Grade-II
Rock mass properties, liner properties and bolt properties used are same as that used in
platform tunnel analysis.
Finite element analyses have been performed for both types of rock mass and support
system for both rock types have been estimated.
Loads and geological profile adopted in the analysis are same as defined in section 3.4.
Typical model and stages used is presented in figures below.
- Page 38 -
Figure 5.1: RS2 Model for Rock Grade-III
Figure 5.2: RS2 Model for Rock Grade-II
- Page 39 -
5.3.1 Modelling stages
The excavation of Cross Passages tunnel is modelled as different stages in RS2 and is
presented in the following table. The deformation is reset after Stage 0.
Stage Description
1 Insitu Condition
2 Relaxation of NATM Tunnel
3 Excavation of Heading and Installation of Primary Support
4 Excavation of Benching and Installation of Primary Support
5 Installation of Permanent support
6 Ground Water builtup upto ground surface
7 Grouting
5.3.2 Cross Passage Analysis results

Two cases - Cross Passage tunnel passing in grade III rock and in Grade II has been studied
and the results have been depicted below;
iii. Case 1- Cross Passage in Volcanic Breccia-Grade III
Figure 5.3: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation Cross Passage in Volcanic Breccia grade
III rock | |.
The maximum vertical displacement of NATM tunnel due to cross passage excavation is about
3mm whereas maximum vertical settlement at ground is about 1mm with proposed support
- Page 40 -
system. No yielding of the bolts is seen in the analysis. Thus provided primary support is found
to be sufficient to safe guard the excavation as initial support. Following figure shows support
capacity plot for shotcrete used for stabilisation of opening.
Figure 5.4: Support capacity plot for 150mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade III rock |u|.
The final gross vertical displacement in cross passage derived after installation of permanent
lining is about 4mm whereas on ground maximum vertical settlement 1.5mm and are
acceptable.
- Page 41 -
iv. Case 2- Tunnel passing in Volcanic Breccia- Grade II
Figure 5.6: Vertical displacement of ground due to excavation Cross Passage in Volcanic Breccia grade
II rock | |.
about 1.5mm whereas maximum vertical settlement at ground is about 1mm with proposed
support is found to be sufficient to safe guard the excavation as initial support.
Figure 5.7: Support capacity plot for 100mm thick shotcrete in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock |u|
- Page 42 -
Figure 5.8: Vertical displacement of ground at final stage in Volcanic Breccia grade II rock.
The final gross vertical displacement in cross passage derived after installation of permanent
lining is about 1.5mm whereas on ground maximum vertical settlement 1.5mm.
These Cross passage are used to connect Station box with Platform tunnel. Both these cavities
are also excavated in close vicinity. Thus the deformation happening due to excavation of station
box and Platform tunnel will affect the surface settlement above the cross passage which need
to considered in monitoring trigger limits.
- Page 43 -
6 PROPOSED PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR CROSS PASSAGE TUNNEL

Based on numerical calculation, recommended support for cross passage Tunnel in foreseen
rock grade is listed in Table below. The support system will be further modified during detailed
design stage based on any changes in the construction methodology and further exploration.
Rock Rock
Grade Support Mass Q Values Recommended Rock Support
Class Quality range
Grade II B Fair 4>Q >10 i. Systematic bolting: 25mm diameter, 4m

Rock long Fully Grouted Bolts beyond NATM
tunnel excavation profile @ 2.0m c/c
direction.
Grade III C Very 0.3>Q >4 i. Systematic bolting: 25mm diameter, 4m

Poor/Po long Fully Grouted Bolts beyond NATM
or Rock tunnel excavation profile @ 1.5m c/c
direction.
Table 6.1: Summary of support recommendation for Cross Passage Tunnel
Detailed analysis for additional provisions will be made in next stage of design (Detailed design
stage) based on rockmass information gathered during station box excavation. Comprehensive
face mapping will be carried out at station excavation stage. This mapping will be used an as
important input in analysis for formation of wedges due to the discontinuities in the area.
Requirement of additional support, length of rock bolts and the systematic bolting pattern will be
refined looking into the unwedge analysis. If required, to increase the standup time, provision for
forepoling / umbrella roofing arrangements will be made mainly at junctions between station box
and platform tunnel.
In addition to this, if weak rock class encounters during station box excavation, additional
support class will be analysed and rock support will be designed to suit the condition.
- Page 44 -
7 PROPOSED PERMANENT SUPPORT

The NATM analysis for permanent lining has been carried out with FEM using RS2 software.
Permanent concrete lining is modelled as a liner- reinforced concrete and designed to take
overburden due to loosed rock mass from tunnel crown to ground, hydrostatic pressure due to
ground water and grouting load.
In addition to this, Surcharge load of 50 kPa is modelled on ground surface. Based on FEM
analysis, forces on concrete lining in form of Bending moment, Shear force and Axial force are
extracted and final concrete lining design is carried out. The design was carried as per the
design requirement of IS 456:2000.
The material properties for permanent lining are shown in below.
Structure Material Properties
Grade 35 Cast In-Situ

Permanent Lining
Concrete
Concrete
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
Lining
High Tensile Steel Deformed
500 N/mm2
Reinforcement bars (Type 2), fy
Young’s Modulus, Es 205 GPa
Table 7.1: Material properties for permanent lining.
Forces developed in concrete lining are extracted from FEM analysis and thickness of final
lining is derived considering the critical values. Final lining thickness required for platform tunnel
is 350mm whereas for cross passage lining thickness required is 400mm. Detailed of forces in
the lining and design checks for lining thickness are attached as Annexure I and Annexure II of
the report.
All the structural elements were found to have adequate capacities for the forces acting on it.
Seismic forces on the tunnel lining has no significant effect. Hence, seismic analysis is not being
carried out in the present submission of preliminary design. However, seismic analysis for the
lining will be carried out in the definitive design.
- Page 45 -
9 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are some recommendation that need to followed during actual construction based on
encountered site conditions.
1. Pre-splitting blasting technique shall be used to avoid any overbreaks.
2. In the case of instability of the face, water ingress and/or sand lenses, either one
or a combination of the following measures shall be used to support the face:
 Strengthening of face with shotcrete and face bolting as per design
 Increasing shotcrete thickness
 Reducing the size of the ‘advance’
 Placing an additional sealing coat of shotcrete on the face
 Changing construction sequence with more comprehensive ground
support measures such as ground anchors and forepoling.
 Pre-grouting of rock mass before excavation
10 MONITORING
Systematic and frequent monitoring, observation and interpretation are important components of
NATM. The program for monitoring, observation and interpretation is designed to capture the
range of expected System Behaviours. The main function of the program is to determine
whether the observed System Behaviour lies with expected limits and to validate the
appropriateness of the excavation and support measures. Another aspect is the prediction of
the System Behaviour and the update of the geological/geotechnical model.
Monitoring and observation use various sources of information such as geological
documentation and exploration, visual inspections of face and lining as well as geotechnical
measurements.
Combined information from various sources creates a clear picture of the ground response,
ground support interaction, and spatial ground structure.
Over the last two decades 3D displacement monitoring has become common practice, gradually
replacing other techniques because it provides a high quantity of information. Other monitoring
devices are only installed in special circumstances.
3D Monitoring data are usually presented in the following standardized formats:

o Time displacement diagram. Construction phases are also presented on the same
plot, allowing correlation between construction activities and displacement. The
displacement history is used to assess the stabilization process.
o Distance displacement diagram. Displacements are shown against the distance to the
tunnel face.
o Deflection curve diagram with trend line. It represents the status of displacements of
one position in cross-section along the tunnel at a particular time.
- Page 46 -
Instrumentation, monitoring and reporting for platform tunnel will be carried out using 3D
monitoring points. Typical instrumentation and monitoring cross section of are given in Figure
10.1. The trigger values for these instruments are given in Table 10.1.
Review Levels for convergence monitoring will be as follows:
Rock Grade Alert (%) Action (%) Alarm (%)
II 0.015 0.025 0.03
III 0.08 0.14 0.18
Table 10.1: Trigger Levels for Convergence Measurement
Figure 10.1: Typical Instrumentation Scheme
- Page 47 -
. Typical instrumentation and monitoring cross section of both type of Rock Grades are given in
figure below. Trigger values for cross passage will be considers same as that of platform tunnel
considering additional deformation of Station box and Platform tunnel in close vicinity.
Figure 10.2: Typical Instrumentation Scheme for Cross Passage
- Page 48 -
11 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OPTIONS
The enlargement of platform tunnel can be done through cross passages or through TBM tunnel
depending on the site conditions. Proper care and safety should be adopted while excavating
and supporting the junctions of cross passage and platform tunnel. Three options have been
developed with different construction sequence for the enlargement of TBM tunnel and
excavation of cross passages. These options have been described in detail below. Based on this
preliminary construction sequence option, suitable sequence will be decided by CJV and will be
further developed for application on site.
11.1 Option 1
Stage-1
In order to minimize the settlements at surface it is required to either excavate the station up to
3rd level of strut or if excavation of station has been done to bottom level, then RCC walls and
slabs should be constructed up to mezzanine level. The above two options will provide the
lateral restraints during the enlargement of platform tunnel and thus minimizing the settlements
at surface.
- Page 49 -
Figure 11.1: Plan and Section-Stage-1 (Option-1)
Stage-2
Enlarge the platform tunnel through already excavated TBM tunnel at the junction of cross
passage. In this stage cross passage will not be excavated and platform tunnel will be enlarged
at a distance of D on either side from the walls of cross passage. The enlargement of platform
tunnel will be done by demolishing only 3 segment rings at a time.
- Page 50 -
Stage-3
Complete the excavation of station up to bottom level if it is still not completed.
- Page 51 -
Stage-4
Start the excavation and primary support for cross passage and construct the junction of
platform tunnel and cross passage with proper support system.
- Page 52 -
Stage-5
Complete the excavation of entire platform tunnel through cross passage.
- Page 53 -
Stage-6
Excavate the cross passages of other locations and complete the invert of the platform tunnel.
Install the final lining of platform tunnel as well as cross passage.
- Page 54 -
11.2 Option 2
Stage-1
In order to minimize the settlements at surface it is required to either excavate the station up to
3rd level of strut or if excavation of station has been done to bottom level, then RCC walls and
slabs should be constructed up to mezzanine level. The above two options will provide the
lateral restraints during the enlargement of platform tunnel and thus minimizing the settlements
at surface.
- Page 55 -
- Page 56 -
Stage-2
Enlarge the platform tunnel through already excavated TBM tunnel for the entire stretch. The
enlargement of platform tunnel will be done by demolishing only 3 segment rings at a time.
- Page 57 -
Stage-3
Complete the excavation of station up to bottom level if it is still not completed.
- Page 58 -
Stage-4
Start the excavation and primary support for cross passage and construct the junction of
platform tunnel and cross passage with proper support system.
- Page 59 -
Stage-5
Complete the invert of the platform tunnel. Install the final lining of platform tunnel as well as
cross passage.
- Page 60 -
11.3 Option 3
Stage-1
Complete the excavation of station to bottom level and construct RCC walls and slabs up to
mezzanine level.
- Page 61 -
Stage-2
Excavate the cross passage at the end of the station box and install the primary support of the
cross passage
- Page 62 -
Stage-3
Enlarge the platform tunnel through cross passage but leaving the 7.o m distance from the face
of cross passage walls undisturbed for better stability of junction. Other cross passage may be
excavated against enlarged platform tunnel depending on the site requirements
- Page 63 -
Stage-4
Enlarge the platform tunnel at the junction of cross passage and install primary support systeme
at the junction of cross passage and platform tunnel.
- Page 64 -
Stage-5
Excavate the remaining cross passages with proper primary support
- Page 65 -
Stage-6
Complete the invert of the platform tunnel. Install the final lining of platform tunnel as well as
cross passage.
- Page 66 -
12 CONCLUSION
The preliminary calculations presented in this report have been done to ensure the proposed
support for Platform tunnel , typical cross passage and associated settlements at the ground are
acceptable.
The proposed rock support limits the deformation of tunnel within acceptable limits under giving
boundary conditions. Results considering tunnel in Breccia GIII rock has been used as a more
conservative choice, being GIII degraded quality of rock than GII that appears in some parts of
the section.
Here, it necessary to note that the present analysis is carried out considering the rock
parameters with disturbance factor of 0.7. In actual situation, the rock mass parameters with
disturbance factor will be in applicable to localised area around the opening and rock mass
parameters will be rather having much better behaviour than that modelled in present analysis
which is an conservative approach. DD stage will consider the real situation that is foreseen in
case optimisation is required.
The construction sequence presented in the report are for information only. Actual construction
sequence will be derived by CJV based on site requirement based on the preliminary
construction sequence presented in the report.
For Instrumentation and Monitoring proposed at station box A and B, please refer separate
report no.LTS-GCC-GEO-SMA-170004-A.
- Page 67 -
Annexure I
Platform Tunnel
Design Calculations and Results
- Page 68 -
Concrete lining Check : Case I

- Ground water builtup upto Surface

- Page 69 -
Project : MML3_UGC07
Platform Tunnel_Permanent Lining
Bending Capacity for 350mm Permanent Lining (GWT at GL)
Width 1.0m
Rectangular Column: Interaction Diagram
Basic Data
2
fcu = 40 N/mm layer depth no dia Asc
2
fy = 500 N/mm 1 55.0 6 T 20 1885
2 0.0 T 0
b = 1000 mm 3 0.0 T 0
h = 350 mm 4 0.0 T 0
cover = 50 mm 5 295.0 6 T 20 1885
3770
Asc % 1.08%
N_axis Nu Mu N/bh M/bh2

29 -1176 75 -3.36 0.61
58 182 245 0.52 2.00
88 1060 346 3.03 2.83
117 1730 410 4.94 3.35
Depth to layer
146 2315 452 6.61 3.69
175 2778 467 7.94 3.81
4
204 3474 442 9.92 3.60
233 4175 404 11.93 3.30
263 4823 361 13.78 2.94
292 5435 310 15.53 2.53
321 6019 250 17.20 2.04
350 6583 181 18.81 1.47
350 6583 181 18.81 1.47
0.35.Ac.fcu + 0.67.As.fy = 6163 kN
Results from RS2

N-M Plot Interaction Diagram
ULS Case M(kNm) N (kN)
Case 1 190.50 2502
Bending Capacity for 350mm
7000
Permanent Lining (GWT at GL)
Case 2 183.00 2570
6000
5000
4000
N - kN
3000
,
2000
1000 Note: Moment and Axial Force are

considered for the Ultimate
Load Cases of 1m width lining.
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
M - kNm
PROJECT MML3_UGC07
DESIGN Case 1 (with water table at GL)
CHECK ON SHEAR
CODE IS 456 : 2000
0.42xu
Fc = 0.36 fckxu
xu d
D
d z Ast
Ft = 0.87Asfy b
Lining Details Limiting Value of Depth of neutral axis,

Design Permanent fy xu,max /d
Concrete Grade 250 0.53
Characteristics Strength fck 40 N/mm2 415 0.48
Width of Lining b 1000 mm 500 0.46
Depth of Lining D 350 mm
Yield Strength of Main Bar fy 500 N/mm2 Check Limit "xu,max /d"
Main Bar Diameter T 20 x 6 Nos xu = 0.87fyAs/[0.36fckb]
T 0 x 2 Nos = 57 mm
Total Main Bar Area As 1884.96 mm2 xu/d = 0.20 < 0.46 OK
Link Bar Diameter T 10 z = d - 0.42xu
Clear Cover c 50 mm = 256 mm
Effective Depth of Lining d 280 mm
Applied Loading
Shear Force V 200 kN
Axial Force P 1688 kN Mom at Max: Shear Location
Load Factor gf 1.5
Factd Shear Force V 300.0 kN
Factd Axial Force Pu 2532 kN
100As/bd = 0.67 Grade 15 20 25 30 35 40

Vc 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57
100As/bd = (Note:(100As/bd)<0.15, Use Vc of (100As/bd)=0.15)
Characteristics Strength, fck = 40 N/mm2
Shear Strength of Conc:, vc = 0.57 N/mm2 Tab 19, IS456
For Shear Strength of Members under Axial Compression,
δ = 1 + [3Pu/Ag fck] (Conservatively assumed lowest axial force)

1.361714286 <1.5
Actual Concrete Stress, vc = 0.78 N/mm2 (Increased due to Axial Loading)
Limited Max: Shear Stress, vcmax = 4 N/mm2 Vc < Vcmax Tab 20, IS456
Limited Min: Shear Stress, Vcmin = 0.4 N/mm2 CL.26.5.1.6, IS456
Applied Shear Stress, vu = 1.07 N/mm2
For Applied Shear > Shear Strength of Concrete, Shear Link is required.
Yield Strength of Link, fyv = 415 N/mm2
Extra Applied Shear Stress, vu-vc = 0.29 N/mm2 Vc < Vcmin Clause 26.5.16
Required Shear Link, (Asv/sv)required = 1.11 mm
Use Shear Link 2 T 10 @ 125 mm c/c spacing As = 1.2566371

Total As = 1.2566371
Provided Shear Link, (Asv/sv)provided = 1.26 mm OK
Page : 1
CALCULATION SHEET
Office : Calculated : Date : 12-7-18

Ref / Drg No : Checked : Date :
Project : Mumbai Metro Line 3-Contract UGC07 Remarks : 1000mm Concrete Lining (GWT @ GL)
Crack Width Calculations Notes: 1.0m NATM Concrete Lining

For Section with Bending Moment and Axial Force
Input Data
Service Moment, Ms = 127.0 kNm

Servce Axial Force, Ns = -1668.0 kN (+ve for tension and -ve for compression)
fcu = 2
section width, b= 1000 mm concrete strength, 40 N/mm
section depth, h= 350 mm steel grade, fy = 500 N/mm2
min cover, cmin = 45 mm E of steel, Es = 205000 N/mm2

bar spacing, s= 150 mm E of concrete, Ec = 15811 N/mm2
Reinforcement Arrangement
Depth, di Bar Size Spacing Area b

Layer εc
mm mm mm mm2
Asc 1 63.0 20 150 2094.4
Asc 2 0.0 x
Ast 5
Ast 4
di
Ast 3 h
Ast 2 As i εs
Ast 1 227.0 20 150 2094.4
(total tension steel) 2094.4
0.60% ε1
Determine Neutral Axis
by trial and error, x = 294.6947 mm check Ntrial = -1668.0 := Ns, okay

Mtrial = 127.0 := Ms, okay
Depth, di Area Strain Stress Force Level Arm Moment

mm mm2 m/m N/mm2 kN mm kNm
Concrete top 147347 -0.000609 -9.63 -1418.3 -76.77 108.9
Asc 1 63.0 2094.4 -0.000479 -98.12 -189.7 -112.00 21.2
Asc 2
Ast 5
Ast 4
Ast 3
Ast 2
Ast 1 227.0 2094.4 -0.000140 -28.67 -60.0 52.00 -3.1
-1668.0 127.0
Computation of Crack Width
steel stress at Ast 1, fs = -28.67 N/mm2 < 0.8fy, okay

effective depth, d= 227.00 mm s
strain at soffit, ε1 = (fs/Es)*(h-x)/(d1-x) = 0.000114
stiffening effect of concrete, ε2 = b.(h-x).(a'-x)/(3.Es.Ast.(d-x)) = -0.000035
cmin
εm = ε1 - ε 2 = 0.000149 acr
dist from nearest rebar, acr = {(s/2)2 + (cmin+dia/2)2} 0.5 - dia/2 = 83.01 mm
Estimated Crack Width, w = 3acr.εm / {1 + 2(acr - cmin)/(h – x)} = 0.016 mm < 0.20 mm
Crackwidth _ MW printed: 16-07-2018

Concrete lining Check : Case II

- Unequal Grouting
- Page 70 -
Permanent Lining_Platform Tunnel
Bending Capacity for 350mm Permanent Lining (With Unequal Grouting)
Width 1.0m
Basic Data
2
2
fy = 500 N/mm 1 55.0 6 T 20 1885
2 0.0 T 0
b = 1000 mm 3 0.0 T 0
h = 350 mm 4 0.0 T 0
cover = 50 mm 5 295.0 6 T 20 1885
3770
Asc % 1.08%

29 -1176 75 -3.36 0.61
58 182 245 0.52 2.00
88 1060 346 3.03 2.83
117 1730 410 4.94 3.35
Depth to layer
146 2315 452 6.61 3.69
175 2778 467 7.94 3.81
4
204 3474 442 9.92 3.60
233 4175 404 11.93 3.30
263 4823 361 13.78 2.94
292 5435 310 15.53 2.53
321 6019 250 17.20 2.04
350 6583 181 18.81 1.47
350 6583 181 18.81 1.47
0.35.Ac.fcu + 0.67.As.fy = 6163 kN
Interaction Diagram Results from RS2

N-M Plot ULS Case M(kNm) N (kN)
Bending Capacity for 350mm Case 1 198.00 2534
7000 Permanent Lining (With Unequal Case 2 175.50 2279
Grouting)
6000
5000
4000
N - kN
3000
,
2000
1000 Note: Moment and Axial Force are

considered for the Ultimate
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
M - kNm
PROJECT MML3_UGC07
DESIGN Case 2 (with unequal grouting)
CHECK ON SHEAR
CODE IS 456 : 2000
0.42xu
Fc = 0.36 fckxu
xu d
D
d z Ast
Ft = 0.87Asfy b

T 0 x 2 Nos = 57 mm
Effective Depth of Lining d 280 mm
Applied Loading
Axial Force P 1698 kN AF at Max: Shear Location
Load Factor gf 1.5
Factd Axial Force Pu 2547 kN
100As/bd = 0.67 Grade 15 20 25 30 35 40

Vc 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57

1.363857143 <1.5
Extra Applied Shear Stress, vu-vc = 0.29 N/mm2 Vc < Vcmin Clause 26.5.16

Total As = 1.2566371
Page : 1
CALCULATION SHEET
Office : Calculated : Date : 12-7-18

Ref / Drg No : Checked : Date :
Project : Mumbai Metro Line 3-Contract UGC07 Remarks : 1000mm Concrete Lining (with unequal grouting)
Crack Width Calculations Notes: 1.0m NATM Concrete Lining

For Section with Bending Moment and Axial Force
Input Data
Service Moment, Ms = 132.0 kNm

Servce Axial Force, Ns = -1689.0 kN (+ve for tension and -ve for compression)
fcu = 2
section width, b= 1000 mm concrete strength, 40 N/mm
section depth, h= 350 mm steel grade, fy = 500 N/mm2
min cover, cmin = 45 mm E of steel, Es = 205000 N/mm2

bar spacing, s= 150 mm E of concrete, Ec = 15811 N/mm2
Reinforcement Arrangement
Depth, di Bar Size Spacing Area b

Layer εc
mm mm mm mm2
Asc 1 63.0 20 150 2094.4
Asc 2 0.0 x
Ast 5
Ast 4
di
Ast 3 h
Ast 2 As i εs
Ast 1 227.0 20 150 2094.4
(total tension steel) 2094.4
0.60% ε1
Determine Neutral Axis
by trial and error, x = 288.6368 mm check Ntrial = -1689.0 := Ns, okay

Mtrial = 132.0 := Ms, okay
Depth, di Area Strain Stress Force Level Arm Moment

mm mm2 m/m N/mm2 kN mm kNm
Concrete top 144318 -0.000629 -9.95 -1436.3 -78.79 113.2
Asc 1 63.0 2094.4 -0.000492 -100.87 -195.0 -112.00 21.8
Asc 2
Ast 5
Ast 4
Ast 3
Ast 2
Ast 1 227.0 2094.4 -0.000134 -27.56 -57.7 52.00 -3.0
-1689.0 132.0
Computation of Crack Width
steel stress at Ast 1, fs = -27.56 N/mm2 < 0.8fy, okay

effective depth, d= 227.00 mm s
strain at soffit, ε1 = (fs/Es)*(h-x)/(d1-x) = 0.000134
stiffening effect of concrete, ε2 = b.(h-x).(a'-x)/(3.Es.Ast.(d-x)) = -0.000047
cmin
εm = ε1 - ε 2 = 0.000181 acr
dist from nearest rebar, acr = {(s/2)2 + (cmin+dia/2)2} 0.5 - dia/2 = 83.01 mm
Estimated Crack Width, w = 3acr.εm / {1 + 2(acr - cmin)/(h – x)} = 0.020 mm < 0.20 mm
Crackwidth _D_1000mm MW printed: 16-07-2018

Annexure II
Cross Passage
Design Calculations and Results
- Page 71 -
Concrete lining Check : Case I

- Ground water builtup upto Surface
- Page 72 -
DESIGN (PERMANENT LINING)_CP
Bending Capacity for 400mm Permanent Lining
Width 1.0m
Basic Data
2
2
fy = 500 N/mm 1 55.0 8 T 25 3927
2 0.0 T 0
b = 1000 mm 3 0.0 T 0
h = 400 mm 4 0.0 T 0
cover = 50 mm 5 345.0 8 T 25 3927
7854
Asc % 1.96%

33 -2886 98 -7.21 0.61
67 -168 498 -0.42 3.11
100 1117 674 2.79 4.21
133 2024 780 5.06 4.87
Depth to layer
167 2646 828 6.61 5.18
200 3175 848 7.94 5.30
4
233 4096 795 10.24 4.97
267 5133 709 12.83 4.43
300 6058 624 15.14 3.90
333 6903 535 17.26 3.34
367 7691 439 19.23 2.74
400 8436 333 21.09 2.08
400 8436 333 21.09 2.08
0.35.Ac.fcu + 0.67.As.fy = 8231 kN
Results from RS2

Case 1 459.00 2267
9000
Permanent Lining
Case 2 385.80 2093
8000
7000
6000
5000
N - kN
4000
,
3000
2000
Note: Moment and Axial Force are
1000 considered for the Ultimate
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
M - kNm
PROJECT MML3_UGC07
DESIGN Case 1
CHECK ON SHEAR
CODE IS 456 : 2000
0.42xu
Fc = 0.36 fckxu
xu d
D
d z Ast
Ft = 0.87Asfy b

T 0 x 2 Nos = 119 mm
Effective Depth of Lining d 325.5 mm
Applied Loading
Load Factor gf 1.5
Factd Axial Force Pu 2299.5 kN
100As/bd = 1.21 Grade 15 20 25 30 35 40

Vc 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.73

1.2874375 <1.5
Extra Applied Shear Stress, vu-vc = 0.72 N/mm2 Vc > Vcmin Clause 26.5.16

Total As = 2.2619467
Concrete lining Check : Case II

- Unequal Grouting
- Page 73 -
DESIGN (PERMANENT LINING)_CP
Bending Capacity for 400mm Permanent Lining
Width 1.0m
Basic Data
2
2
fy = 500 N/mm 1 55.0 8 T 25 3927
2 0.0 T 0
b = 1000 mm 3 0.0 T 0
h = 400 mm 4 0.0 T 0
cover = 50 mm 5 345.0 8 T 25 3927
7854
Asc % 1.96%

33 -2886 98 -7.21 0.61
67 -168 498 -0.42 3.11
100 1117 674 2.79 4.21
133 2024 780 5.06 4.87
Depth to layer
167 2646 828 6.61 5.18
200 3175 848 7.94 5.30
4
233 4096 795 10.24 4.97
267 5133 709 12.83 4.43
300 6058 624 15.14 3.90
333 6903 535 17.26 3.34
367 7691 439 19.23 2.74
400 8436 333 21.09 2.08
400 8436 333 21.09 2.08
0.35.Ac.fcu + 0.67.As.fy = 8231 kN
Results from RS2

Case 1 477.00 2885
9000
Permanent Lining
Case 2 438.00 2913
8000
7000
6000
5000
N - kN
4000
,
3000
2000
Note: Moment and Axial Force are
1000 considered for the Ultimate
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
M - kNm
PROJECT MML3_UGC07
DESIGN Case 1
CHECK ON SHEAR
CODE IS 456 : 2000
0.42xu
Fc = 0.36 fckxu
xu d
D
d z Ast
Ft = 0.87Asfy b

T 0 x 2 Nos = 119 mm
Effective Depth of Lining d 325.5 mm
Applied Loading
Load Factor gf 1.5
Factd Axial Force Pu 2908.5 kN
100As/bd = 1.21 Grade 15 20 25 30 35 40

Vc 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.73

1.3635625 <1.5
Extra Applied Shear Stress, vu-vc = 0.80 N/mm2 Vc > Vcmin Clause 26.5.16

Total As = 2.2619467
Drawings
- Page 74 -
AMBERG - STUP JV
MUMBAI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
‘ ’
STUP
Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Amberg Engineering AG P-11, Darga Road, Park Circus,
(Incorporated in Switzerland with limited liability) Kolkata-700 017, India.
Unit No.-204, II Floor, Solitaire Plaza, MG Road, Tel.:033-40109797, 22807430/31
Gurgaon - 122002 (Haryana) E-Mail : kolkata@stupmail.com
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch MAROL NAKA STATION - NATM TUNNEL
DRAWING LIST
PG DA AC UGC07-NAT-SMA-4299-001
L&T – STEC JV MUMBAI A P
A 03-05-2018 SD FIRST ISSUE OF DRAWING PG DA AC SD

AS MARKED 03-05-2018 UGC07-NAT-SMA-4299-001
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch MAROL NAKA NATM STATION
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR OPTION 1
(SHEET 1 OF 3)

AS MARKED 03-05-2018 UGC07-NAT-SMA-4300-001 - 003
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 2 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 3 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 1 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 2 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 3 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 1 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 2 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
(SHEET 3 OF 3)

AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
PLATFORM TUNNEL
PRIMARY ROCK SUPPORT DETAIL
(ROCK CLASS III)
P.G. D.A. N.M.A UGC07-NAT-SMA-4304-001

A 01.05.2018 SD ISSUED FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN PG DA NMA S.D.
1:50 (A1) 01.05.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
PLATFORM TUNNEL
(ROCK CLASS III(A))

1:50 (A1) 01.05.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
PLATFORM TUNNEL
TYPICAL MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION SECTION

1:5, 1:25 (A1) 01.05.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
PLATFORM TUNNEL
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING - CONCRETE LINING

1:25 (A1) 01.05.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
PLATFORM TUNNEL
CONCRETE LINING - REINFORCEMENT DETAIL

1:25 (A1) 01.05.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
CROSS PASSAGE-MAROL NAKA STATION
(ROCK GRADE II)

1:25 (A1) 19.06.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
(ROCK GRADE III)

1:25 (A1) 19.06.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
(ROCK GRADE IIIA)

1:25 (A1) 01.05.2018
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
TYPICAL MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION SECTION

A 19.06.2018 SD ISSUED FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN PG DA NMA 1:5 (A1) S.D.
19.06.2018
1:50 (A1)
AMBERG - STUP JV
‘ ’
STUP
Ph: +91 124 4881000
www.amberg.ch
PLATFORM TUNNEL CROSS PASSAGE
CONCRETE LINING - REINFORCEMENT DETAIL

1:50 (A1) 19.06.2018

Lts GCC Nat Sma 180001 A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lts GCC Nat Sma 180001 A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mumbai

Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

L&T‐STEC MML‐3 UGC‐07

OWNER: Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRC)

EPC CONTRACTOR: L&T-STEC JV

DDC CONSULTANT: Amberg - STUP JV

PROJECT: Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ): Contract-UGC-07

TITLE: PRELIMIANRY DESIGN-SUPPORT DETAILS FOR PLATFORM TUNNEL AND ASSOCIATED

PG A.D R.S. N.M.A A.C

Mandatory distribution last revision:

Reason for LAST REVISION or ref. Non Conformance:

1.1 Design limitations

1.2 Scope of the document

2 DESIGN STANDARDS AND REFERENCES

3.2 Determination of Ground Behaviour

o Kinematics: Kinematical analyses for the determination of discontinuity controlled

Figure 3.1: Basic categories of Behaviors Types

3.3 Empirical Method

Sr.No. DESCRIPTION RMR Q value.

1 Rock Grade – II 60-65 4.6-10

2 Rock Grade– III 43-53 0.3-1.5

Excavation category ESR

Temporary mine openings 3-5

Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for 1.6

Storage rooms, water treatment plants, minor 1.3

Power stations, major road and railway 1.0

Underground nuclear power stations, railway 0.8

Sl. No. Description Maximum unsupported span (m)

1 Rock grade – II 4.8

2 Rock grade – III 1.7

Sr.No. Description Support category

Fibre reinforced shotcrete 75 -90mm and rock bolting

Fibre reinforced shotcrete 100-150mm and rock bolting

Sr.No. Description Support category

1 Rock Grade – II Fibre reinforced shotcrete 100mm and rock bolting

2 Rock Grade – III Fibre reinforced shotcrete150mm and rock bolting

3 Rock Grade– IIIA ( Fibre reinforced shotcrete 150mm with lattice

3.4 Numerical Analysis of Platform Tunnel using RS2

3.4.1 Geotechnical parameters

3.4.2 Geological Profile

Table 3.6: Design parameters adopted, from /16/

3.4.5 Design software used

3.4.6 General model description

3.4.7 Structural elements

Shotcrete grade Compressive strength Young’s modulus Steel Fibres

M30 30 N/mm2 27400 MPa 35kg/m3

Table 3.8: Material Parameters- Shotcrete

Case i- Tunnel passing in Grade III- Volcanic Breccia- Liner details

3.4.8 Modelling stages

3 Excavate 1 m below 1st Strut

5 Excavate 1m below 2 nd Strut

7 Excavate 0.5m below Anchor

8 Install Pre-stressed Anchor (Pretension 40T)

9 Excavate 1m below 3 rd Strut

22 Install Support +Base Salb+ NATM Relaxation

23 NATM Exc and Heading Support

25 Cast Mezzanine Slab+ Station Wall+ Backfill+ NATM Final lining

27 Station Wall + Backfill upto Concourse slab

28 Uninstall Anchors above concourse slab

29 Cast Concourse Slab + Station wall +Backfill

31 Station wall till top slab+Backfill+ Cast Top Slab

33 Backfill till ground level