Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00805-z

TECHNICAL PAPER

Design and analysis of tunnel cross‑passage openings: 3D finite

element analysis versus 3D shell‑spring approach
Nilan S. Jayasiri1   · Kuo Chieh Chao1 · Noppadol Phien‑Wej1 · Ochok Duangsano2 · Auttakit Asanprakit2

Received: 18 October 2021 / Accepted: 14 March 2022 / Published online: 1 April 2022
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

Abstract
Finite element analysis and shell-spring approach are two widely adopted methods to quantify the induced loads in a tunnel
lining: for a typical sequential ring, without any openings. This study assesses the effectiveness of utilizing these methods
to evaluate cross-passage opening-induced stress redistribution occurring in the segmental lining. For this purpose, member
forces were derived using each method based on a case in Bangkok, Thailand, where two cross-passages were being con-
structed between a bored tunnel and a shaft. The analysis was followed by a comparative study to discuss the effectiveness of
using each method in the design of cross-passages. According to the results, it was found that the predicted member forces
from both models are in accordance with each other. Hence it was concluded that, for a similar case, one can use more sim-
plistic 3D shell-spring models to examine the lining response rather than carrying out complex 3D finite element models.
Furthermore, it was found that the presence of circumferential joints in tunnel lining significantly affects the load transfer
mechanism between the opened ring and the adjacent fully enclosed ring. As opposed to the 3D finite element model, the
ability to explicitly consider this effect in the calculation was one of the key advantages of conducting the 3D shell-spring
model. Moreover, this study concludes that the design of a temporary support system can also be conducted relatively easily
and precisely by the 3D shell-spring approach.

Keywords  Tunnel cross-passage · Segmental lining · 3D shell-spring model · 3D finite element model · Circumferential
joints · Temporary support system

Introduction shaft structure to provide a safe means of egress in case of

emergency [4]. Cross-passages also serve different key func-
With the increasing popularity of rail and road tunnels, a tions during the normal operation and maintenance of the
significant number of tunnel accidents and emergency situ- tunnel. Due to the aforementioned concerns, cross-passages
ations have been recorded during the past few decades [1]. have been a major component in most tunneling projects
The accidents inside the tunnels are more dangerous than on all over the world [5]. An illustration of a cross-passage
roads (open-air). In an emergency situation, escaping from a between two tunnel tubes is shown in Fig. 1.
tunnel will be difficult for a passenger since the tunnels are In most cases, the construction of tunnel cross-passages
constructed underground [2]. Hence, building railway and is carried out towards the end of the project since construc-
road tunnels requires constructing cross-passages at regular tion activities of the cross-passages could disturb the excava-
intervals [3]. Cross-passage is a structure built in between tion of main tunnels. Hence, a delay in finalizing the cross-
the twin-tube TBM tunnels or between a TBM tunnel and a passages could potentially delay handing over the overall
project. Construction of cross-passages involves difficult
technical challenges such as supporting the excavation face,
* Nilan S. Jayasiri excavation profile, and existing bored tunnel linings [6]. It
[email protected]; [email protected] becomes even more challenging when the TBM tunnels are
1
located in soft ground under a high groundwater table [7].
Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang,
Construction of these cross-passages, therefore, involves
Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand
2
a large schedule and cost risk in tunneling projects. Risk
Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Co., Ltd,
can be minimized by implementing adequate supporting
Bangkok 10230, Thailand

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
204 
Page 2 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

Fig. 1  Illustration of a cross-
passage between two tunnel
tubes

Tunnel
cross-passage

measures during the construction process of cross-pas- ring, the areas around the opening will be subjected to high-
sage. To do so, both geotechnical and structural techniques stress concentration [3]. Specifically, the hoop loads will
will have to be taken into consideration in the design of be diverted around the opening, resulting in a considerable
cross-passages. stress redistribution of internal forces and moments in the
Modern Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) allow the lining. Moreover, as a result of the creation of the opening,
construction of bored tunnels using precast segmental con- the stiffness of the segmental ring will be reduced. Conse-
crete linings installed behind the TBM as it progresses. As quently, this could cause deformations to develop more than
a result, the segmental lining will be cut open, or special the allowable limit. The load in the tunnel lining from which
opening segments will be installed to create the opening the segments are removed will be transferred to the adjacent
for the cross-passage from the main tunnel. In a single pass fully enclosed rings, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Due to these rea-
(also called one layer) lining system, the segmental lining sons, strengthening of the tunnel lining will be required. But
provides both immediate initial ground support for the exca- to design strengthening work, it will be essential to quantify
vation as well as the final tunnel support. The formation of the stress concentrations and ring distortions resulting from
an opening for the breakout of cross-passage from the TBM the opening.
tunnel will alter the simple lining behavior to a more com- Even though the cross-passages are a common feature in
plex one. Since the reinforcing steel of the segments is not modern tunneling projects [8], little literature is available in
structurally connected between adjacent segments, the previ- this field. Many past researchers such as Klappers et al. [9]
ously mentioned behavior becomes even more complicated. and Zhang et al. [10] have emphasized the lack of under-
Due to the sudden change in the sectional dimensions of the standing of the structural mechanism of tunnel openings. Li

Fig. 2  Load transfer around the Segmental lining

cross-passage opening

Area under
tension

Cross-passage
opening

Circumferential joint Radial joint

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 3 of 21  204

et al. [11] have reported that most of the available literature in the model. The ability to simulate the structural perfor-
in this field has focused on lining design and construction mance of the tunnel more realistically without compromising
from an industrial point of view rather than looking at the computational power is one of the key advantages of using
problem from a scientific perspective. the 3D shell-spring model. However, it should be mentioned
Because of the lack of understanding of the behavior of that ground springs are unable to capture the complexities
the loading mechanism and due to the risks involved, design of soil behavior as in the 3D finite element approach (see
methods to carry out cross-passage construction involve sig- Fig. 3). Both methods have strengths, weaknesses, and limi-
nificant conservatism; so that the amount of support used tations that restrict their usage. Concisely, the 3D finite ele-
to compensate for the creation of opening may be larger ment approach has the ability to capture the complex ground
than the required amount. By providing the most optimum behavior, yet it is unable to take the tunnel structural features
amount of support, a significant benefit for the project in into account in the design. On the other hand, the 3D shell-
terms of time and cost can be gained. However, to do so, it is spring approach is capable of simulating the performance
required to have a better understanding regarding the devel- of the structural elements. Nevertheless, it is relatively poor
opment of loads, which ultimately calls the need for effective at simulating the ground–structure interaction. Since cross-
design methods. Effective methods to analyze the problem passage junction design is a complex problem that involves
will drive the designers and executers to more efficient and both non-linear soil–structure interaction and non-linear
less problematic solutions. interactions between structural elements, it is difficult to jus-
There are a number of structural design methods available tify which method is the most appropriate method to be used.
to compute member forces in tunnel lining. A comprehen- The main objective of this study is to profoundly investigate
sive review of those methods along with the pros and cons, the effectiveness of using 3D finite element analysis and 3D
have been done by The British Tunnelling Society and The shell-spring analysis to evaluate the stress redistribution
Institution of Civil Engineers [12] and International Tun- occurring in the segmental lining due to the formation of the
nelling Association [13]. These methods can be categorized cross-passage openings. For this purpose, a series of 3D finite
as Empirical methods, ‘Closed-form’ analytical solutions, element models and 3D shell-spring models was conducted
and Numerical models. Due to its simplicity, analytical based on a case study in Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Orange
equations which have been derived from 2D plane-strain Line project, Bangkok, Thailand.
models are widely adopted to design tunnel linings [14–16].
Even though these conventional 2D plane-strain solutions
allow designers to analyze the general behavior of a fully Overview of the engineering case
enclosed tunnel ring, they are not capable of investigating
the detailed response of some special structural features as Site description
cross-passage openings. To overcome this issue, 3D shell-
spring models and 3D finite element models are often used The analysis was carried out based on a cross-passage con-
since they can take into account the complex details of such structed at intervention shaft-14 (IVS-14) at the MRT orange
tunnel structures. line (East) project. The intervention shafts are constructed to
3D finite element approach is a more robust approach relieve air pressure from the tunnels. Additionally, the inter-
that is capable of readily capturing the complexities of soil vention shafts act as emergency egress for passengers when
behavior such as soil arching, soil stress history, anisotropy, the distance between two underground stations is more than
and the changes in soil stiffness and earth pressures due to one kilometer. Adjacent buildings/structures in close prox-
seepage induced consolidation around the tunnel [17]. How- imity to IVS-14 are the Ram Khamhaeng flyover, a 6-story
ever, by adopting this method, consideration of the effect of private building, and a 4-story commercial building.
joints will be a challenging task as coupling of two rings is IVS-14 is an intervention shaft that was constructed to
not possible or very time-consuming for most of the calcula- serve for both emergency egress and ventilation purposes.
tion programs [18]. In addition, it’s also relatively difficult to Hence, two cross-passages (adits), designated for emergency
investigate the structural performance of the temporary steel egress and ventilation purposes, are connected between IVS-
support which is installed to compensate for the reduced tun- 14 and the westbound (WB) tunnel. A graphical illustration
nel support to the ground due to the creation of the opening of IVS-14, egress cross-passage, ventilation cross-passage,
in the segmental lining. In the 3D shell-spring approach, the and east and westbound tunnels are shown in Fig. 4a. To
interaction between the surrounding ground and the tunnel construct the emergency egress adit, two segment rings will
lining is simulated by a certain number of spring elements be opened. Similarly, three segment rings will be opened to
(ground springs). Most importantly, by adopting this method construct the ventilation adit. Plan view of the IVS-14 and
in design, critical tunnel structural features such as joints and cross-passages are shown in Fig. 4b.
temporary steel support systems can be explicitly considered

13
204 
Page 4 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

Initial state of stress

Finite element Shell-spring

analysis approach

Undisturbed
stress streamlines

Arching action In situ loading condition

Direction of undisturbed
stress flow

Zone of stress streamline

separation (tension)

Zone of stress streamline

crowding (compression)

Finite element analysis:

Capable of capturing complex Shell-spring approach:
ground behaviors More simplistic approach

Ground springs

In situ loading
condition

Finite Element
mesh

Fig. 3  Finite element approach vs. shell-spring approach in capturing the ground behavior

Materials and data hydrostatic condition begins at an approximate depth of

1 m below the ground surface, and it changes to a piezo-
Geological conditions and geotechnical parameters metric drawdown at the base level of the Soft Clay layer
[24]. In this study, the average piezometric profile was
The subsoil condition is relatively uniform all over the represented by an equivalent hydrostatic profile from an
Bangkok Metropolitan area, and it can be divided into five elevation of −14 m. Figure 5 illustrates the subsoil condi-
apparent layers: Fill Soil, Soft Clay, Medium Clay, first tion of the study area. The geotechnical parameters which
Stiff Clay, and first Sand [19–22]. Generally, a hydrostatic were extracted from the soil investigation reports [25] are
pore pressure condition can be seen at the topmost area of depicted in Table 1. The centerline of the WB tunnel is
the Bangkok subsoil profile [23]. More specifically, this located at a depth of 15 m from the ground surface level.

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 5 of 21  204

Concrete precast segments

IVS-14 A single tunnel lining ring of the bored tunnel is composed

of five segments and a key segment (called a 5 + 1 system).
The specifications of the precast segmental lining are as fol-
lows: (a) 6.3 m outer diameter, (b) 0.3 m thickness, (c) 1.4 m
Egress Cross-
passage nominal width, and (d) 3 m structural system radius. Mate-
Ventilation
rial properties of the concrete segments are listed in Table 2.
Cross- passage
Construction procedure
Westbound Eastbound
tunnel tunnel A comprehensive review regarding the construction aspects
for this case study has been done by Jayasiri [26], and it is
(a)
briefly presented here.
Regarding the construction process, a temporary steel
support will be installed inside the completed bored tun-
nel to prevent overstressing conditions in the opened rings
and reduce the excessive ring deformations occurring due to
the formation of the opening. The temporary steel support
will stay in place throughout the construction of the cross-
passages, and it will be removed once the cross-passage
construction process is completed. Despite the conventional
way of creating the opening, which is by saw cutting the
concrete segments, special steel segments have been pre-
installed (instead of typical precast concrete segments) to
create the opening relatively quickly and easily. The open-
ing will be formed by dismantling the central part of the
steel segment. The remainder, which is the outer part of the
(b) steel segments, will act as a portal frame supporting hoop
load from the opened rings. Sequential excavation method/
Fig. 4  a Graphical illustration of IVS-14 section. b Plan view of IVS- NATM will be utilized in excavation work. Shotcrete, wire
14 section mesh, and lattice girders will be used as temporary lining.
At the end of excavation work in each cross-passage, the
permanent concrete lining will be cast.

Fig. 5  Subsoil profile
IVS-14

0
Fill

SOFT CLAY
-10
Elevation (m)

MEDIUM CLAY TUNNEL CENTERLINE (WB)

st
1 STIFF CLAY
-20

1st SAND
-30
2nd STIFF CLAY

2nd SAND
-40

13
204 
Page 6 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

Table 1  Geotechnical Soil layer Thickness (m) SPT-N 𝛾t(kN/m3) cu(kN/m2) c′ 𝜙 (deg) E50 (kN/
′ ref K0
parameters of the soil layers
(kN/ m2)
m2)

Fill 4 5 ± 3 18.5 30 0 25 6250 0.6

Soft clay 6 – 15.0 14 0 23 3500 0.73
Medium clay 2.5 – 17.0 25 5 23 7500 0.73
First Stiff Clay 11.5 35 ± 31 19.0 50 3 25 12,600 0.69
First Sand 7 44 ± 38 20.5 – 0 35 25,500 0.43

Table 2  Material properties of concrete precast segments Methodology

Material properties Concrete Reinforcement
The overall methodology of this study is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Compressive strength (MPa) 40 – Required input parameters were extracted from the detailed
Tensile strength (MPa) – 490 design reports of the tunnel project and are presented in
Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 28,000 2 × ­105 “Overview of the engineering case” section. The analysis of
Poisson ratio 0.2 0.3 this study is composed of three components: (1) Soil param-
eter calibration for the 3D FEM (Finite Element Model) and
compatibility check for the 3D SSM (Shell-spring Model),

Data collection
(MRT Orange line IVS-14)

1
Calibration of soil
parameters using Compatibility check
surface settlement data

Calculate ground Calculate ground Single ring

Obtain measured Single ring Closed ring 3D
settlement using settlement using Beam Spring 3D SSM
data SSM FEM
3D FE Peck (1969) method Model

Calibrated soil parameters Compatible 3D SSM

2 Analysis of stress redistribution due to the

formation of the cross-passage openings

3D FEM 3D SSM

3
3D SSM with considering
circumferential joints

Design of temporary steel

support system

Fig. 6  Overall methodology of the study

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 7 of 21  204

(2) Analysis of stress redistribution due to the formation of lining behavior is examined separately by considering the
the cross-passage openings using FEM and SSM, and (3) 3D effect of circumferential joints (see “3D shell-spring model
SSM with considering circumferential joints and design of with considering circumferential joints and design of tem-
temporary steel support system. porary steel support system” section).

3D finite element model and 3D shell‑spring model

3D finite element model and calibration of soil parameters
Instead of modeling the whole length of the tunnel, which
requires a lot of computation time and space, a limited length The 3D finite element code Plaxis [28] was used to per-
along the tunnel was modeled in both 3D FEM and 3D SSM. form the 3D FEM. One of the key advantages of conducting
However, the boundaries of the model were extended well the 3D FE analysis is the capability to simulate the con-
enough to avoid the influence of the boundaries on the cal- struction sequence of the cross-passage. By doing so, the
culation. The ring layout of the bored tunnel where two adits stress changes at the end of each construction stage can be
are connecting is shown in Fig. 7. Ring no. 4, 5, and 6 will investigated. Staged construction simulation was specified
be partially opened due to ventilation adit excavation, and based on the construction process discussed in “Construc-
similarly, Ring no. 12 and 13 will be opened due to egress tion procedure” section. Regarding the boundary conditions,
adit excavation. Both models were developed assuming no the top model boundary was set to be free in all directions,
stress change will occur in the rings ahead of Ring no. 16 while the bottom boundary was fixed in all directions. At
and rings behind Ring no. 1 due to cross-passage opening the vertical sides, the movements at their respective normal
construction. For simplification, the steel portal frame was directions were set to be zero. A medium-type mesh setup
considered as a part of the segmental lining itself. The tem- was employed as the global coarseness of the model, but in
porary steel support and the permanent concrete lining were the areas of key sections, the elements were refined accord-
neglected as the primary goal of the analysis was to find ingly. The 10-node tetrahedral elements were used to model
the stress redistribution that occurred in the tunnel lining the basic soil elements of 3D finite element mesh, whereas
due to cross-passage. In both models, the tunnel lining was the tunnel lining was modeled using 6-node plate elements.
simplified into a continuous cylinder with reduced flexural Moreover, the 12-node interface elements were employed to
rigidity to take the effect of segmental joints into account. simulate the soil-structure interaction. The selection of the
To consider the reduced flexural rigidity due to the presence soil model is discussed in the following section.
of segmental joints, the moment of inertia of the segmental As mentioned in “Materials and data” section, seven soil
lining was reduced based upon Muir Wood’s formula [27]. parameters were obtained from the soil investigation reports
Even though it was not possible in the 3D FE analysis, the of the tunnel project. Rather than using the soil input param-
3D SSM was capable of taking the effect of circumferen- eters directly from the test results, they were first calibrated
tial joints into account for the analysis. However, to better to validate the accuracy. Since field measurements of axial
compare the obtained results from each method, the effect forces and bending moments were not available for this site,
of circumferential joints was not considered in both models soil calibration was carried out using surface settlement
at this stage of the analysis. Later in this paper, the tunnel data induced due to tunneling, based on a monitoring sec-
tion adjacent to the IVS-14. The tunnel lining contraction
method [29] was adopted in the Plaxis FE model to compute
the ground movement due to tunneling. Further, the tunnel
0.2 m W3 = 2.4 m
W2 = 1.6 m volume loss was back calculated using the empirical method
H1 = 3.4 m
W1 = 1.6 m H1 = 4.1 m developed by Peck [30] to determine the contraction ratio
and subsequently input in the FE model. As per the sug-
gestions by Peck, the transverse settlement trough, caused
by tunneling can usually be represented by the Gaussian
function. Hence, the surface settlement ( s ) at a horizontal
distance ( x ) from the tunnel axis is given by
14 1516
8 9 10 11 12 13
6 7
( 2)
−x
3 4 5 Opened s = smax exp , (1)
1 2 2i2
Opened Rings
Ring no. Rings (Egress)
where smax is the maximum settlement (generally located
(Ventilation)
above the tunnel axis) and i is the horizontal distance from
tunnel axis to the inflection point. One of the most adopted
Fig. 7  Segmental ring layout of the cross-passage section

13
204 
Page 8 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

methods to obtain i was suggested by O’Reilly and New parameters (ϕ′, c  , E50
′ ref
 ) were able to obtain from the soil
[31]: investigation reports. As laboratory tested parameters were
not available for the remaining six parameters ( Eoed ref
 , Eur
ref
,Ψ ,
i = kh0 , (2)
vur , Rf  , and m ), it was decided to derive those parameters
where k is the trough width parameter ( k ≈ 0.5 for cohesive based upon the empirical correlations proposed by Phien-
soils and k ≈ 0.25 for granular soils) and h0 is the depth from Wej et al. [32] and Surarak et al. [22] for Bangkok subsoils.
surface to tunnel centerline. The volume of the settlement In addition to that, the default settings of Plaxis were also
trough per unit length of the tunnel ( Vs ), which is equal to considered when deriving the missing parameters. Exclud-
the volume loss ( Vt ) can be obtained by integrating Eq. (1), ing the parameters given in Table 1, the derived parameters
∞ � 2� for the HSM are listed in Table 3.

∫ −∞
−x By adopting the HSM, the ground response was simulated
√
Vs = smax exp dx = 2𝜋ismax . (3)
2i2
more realistically, as shown in Fig. 8. Since the derived settle-
ment trough using the HSM was in line with the field measure-
Soil parameters were calibrated accordingly by com-
ments and the settlement trough obtained from the Empirical
paring the obtained settlement troughs from the numerical
method, further calibration was not required. Hence, the soil
method (Plaxis) with the settlement troughs from the empiri-
parameters presented in Tables 1 and 3 were used as soil input
cal method [30] and field measurements.
parameters to the subsequent 3D finite element analysis.
As the initial step of soil parameter calibration,
Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model (MCM) was utilized
3D shell‑spring model and compatibility check
for the soil units since all the required input parameters
for MCM (ϕ′, c  ) was among the parameters which were
′

3D shell-spring analysis was carried out using the SAP2000

obtained from the soil investigation reports. The compari-
[33] program. In this analysis, the tunnel segments were
son between the settlement troughs obtained from MCM
modeled by adopting Four-node Quadrilateral shell ele-
and field observations is shown in Fig. 8. As illustrated in
ments. Since these shell elements are planer, to represent the
Fig. 8, the settlement trough obtained using the MCM was
tunnel lining, a complete circular ring (the tunnel lining) was
not able to provide an adequate fit with the field measure-
discretized into a series of small elements. Then, the ground
ments. Hence, the Hardening Soil Model (HSM), which has
springs (radial springs and tangential springs) were attached
a total of 10 input parameters, was utilized instead of the
to each element which is located along the circumference of
MCM. Out of the 10 required parameters for the HSM, three

Fig. 8  Comparison of settle- 4
ment troughs
2

0
Settlement (mm)

-2

-4

-6
Measured
Empirical method (V.L. 0.78%)
-8
FEM: using MCM
FEM: using HSM
-10
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Horizontal distance (m)

Table 3  HSM soil parameters Soil stratum ref

Eoed (kN/m2) ref
Eur (kN/m2) Ψ(deg) vur Rf m

Fill 6250 18,750 0 0.2 0.9 0.50

Soft clay 3500 10,500 0 0.2 0.9 1.00
Medium clay 7500 22,500 0 0.2 0.9 1.00
First stiff clay 12,600 37,800 0 0.2 0.9 0.85
First sand 25,500 76,500 0 0.2 0.9 0.80

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 9 of 21  204

the tunnel lining ring. Here, the radial springs are attached
to simulate the induced normal stresses due to the outward Applied Load

deflection of the tunnel lining. Similarly, tangential springs Ground Spring

are attached to simulate the induced shear stresses between
the tunnel lining and the surrounding ground. The spring
elements under tension were neglected to simulate the actual
tunnel lining behavior. In this study, the radial and the tan-
gential spring constants were calculated based on the equa- R Y

tions suggested by Duddeck and Erdmann [15]. Area springs X

were employed to simulate the ground springs in the model.
The loads which act on the tunnel lining were applied as Tunnel Lining

external forces, as illustrated in Fig. 9a. Both vertical and

horizontal ground pressure acting on the tunnel lining was
considered as uniformly acting load. However, the vertical
and horizontal components were converted to radial and
tangential components when loads were assigned to each
element. Loads acting on the tunnel lining were calculated
based on the data presented in “Materials and data” section,
and shown in Fig. 9b. Construction of the 3D SSM was not (a)
a straightforward process; hence, it was achieved stepwise,
as discussed below.
A preliminary analysis was conducted to check the com-
patibility of 3D SSM with the 3D FEM. In other words,
before constructing the fully fledged 3D SSM with cross-
passage openings, member forces of a closed ring-3D SSM
were compared with the obtained member forces of a closed
ring-3D FEM. For this purpose, a stepwise approach (which
is somewhat similar to a model calibration) was followed:

1. As the initial step, a single ring-Beam Spring Model

(closed ring) was constructed by only considering radial
springs and radial ground loads.
2. Then, the tangential springs were added to the same
Beam Spring Model.
3. Tangential earth pressure was added: This model was
considered as the final phase of the Beam Spring Model
(Fig. 10a).
4. After finalizing the above-mentioned Beam Spring
Model (when the member forces of the final beam spring
model are compatible with the member forces of the
closed ring-3D FEM), a single ring-SSM was derived (b)
based on it (Fig. 10b).
5. Finally, the single ring-SSM was further developed into Fig. 9  a Idealized model of SSM. b Loads acting on the tunnel lining
a 16 ring-3D SSM (Fig. 10c), and the member forces
were compared with the closed ring-3D FEM (Fig. 10d) bending moments obtained from the 16 ring-3D SSM show a
to verify the compatibility of the structural response of good agreement with the axial forces and bending moments
the 3D SSM with the 3D FEM. obtained from the closed ring-3D FEM. Hence, it can be veri-
fied that the developed 16 ring-3D SSM is compatible with the
Figure 11 shows the comparison of obtained axial forces closed ring-3D FEM. In the following sections of this paper,
and bending moments at the end of each step. According both models will be further developed to investigate the stress
to the illustration, it can be seen that both axial forces and redistribution due to cross-passage opening construction.

13
204 
Page 10 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

the conclusions were made to present a conservative and

effective method to follow when designing tunnel lining
in cross-passage sections.

3D shell‑spring model with considering

circumferential joints and design of temporary steel
support system

In both the 3D FEM and 3D SSM described in the previ-

ous sections, the tunnel lining was modeled as a continuous
ring with reduced stiffness to consider the segmental joints,
but no attention was given to the effect of circumferential
joints in lining response. Even though such simplification
was acceptable to understand the general structural behav-
ior, as the formation an opening to break in/out the cross-
passage could result in load transfer from the tunnel lining
ring which the segments are removed to the adjacent fully
enclosed rings, it is important to examine the lining behav-
ior in a precise manner. To investigate the influence of cir-
cumferential joints, a 3D SSM model was performed with
considering circumferential joints, and the results were com-
pared with the obtained results of the uniform ring-3D SSM.
One of the key advantages of using 3D SSM is the abil-
ity to explicitly consider the special tunnel features such as
temporary steel support systems in the computation. The
design process of a fully fledged temporary support system
is presented in the final part of this study. Structural response
of the tunnel lining with and without installing the tempo-
rary support was also investigated.

Analysis, results, and discussion

Analysis of stress redistribution due

to the formation of the cross‑passage openings

3D finite element model

The most critical stage of the construction sequence was the

Fig. 10  Perspective views of respective models at each step: a Single
ring beam spring model, b single ring-SSM, c 16 ring-3D SSM, and stage in which the segments were removed to create the open-
d closed ring-3D FEM ings. Once it is started to construct the cross-passages, the
structural integrity of the tunnel lining will be improved to a
certain degree as the cross-passage structure will act as a sup-
Analysis of stress redistribution due port to the main tunnel. After the completion of the cross-pas-
to the formation of the cross‑passage openings sages, the lateral resistance provided by the cross-passages to
the bored tunnel will assist in reducing the ovalization of the
The stress redistribution (in terms of axial force and bend- segmental lining. Furthermore, the induced axial forces in the
ing moment) in the segmental lining due to the formation segmental lining will be minimized as a result of axial force
of the cross-passage openings were obtained using 3D transfer from the segmental lining to the cross-passage lin-
FEM and 3D SSM. A comparative study was then carried ing. To model the most critical stage of construction, despite
out based on the lining response calculated from both mod- the exact construction process discussed in “Construction
els, and the effectiveness of using each analysis method in procedure” section, a simplified construction sequence was
design was discussed. According to the comparative study, assumed in this model, as summarized in Table 4.

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 11 of 21  204

Fig. 11  a Comparison of axial

forces and b comparison of
bending moments

(a)

(b)

Table 4  Assumed construction Stage Description

stages in the 3D FEM for case
(i) I Initial stresses were calculated using the K0 procedure
II Uniform surface load was added to the top model boundary to simulate the surcharge loads
III Soil clusters inside the westbound tunnel were deactivated while simultaneously activating
tunnel lining. Groundwater condition inside the tunnel was set to ‘dry’ condition
IV Egress opening was created by deactivating the plate elements at the opening vicinity
(on the WB tunnel lining). At the same time, a surface pressure that acts in the outward
radial direction was activated on the deactivated plate elements. The activated surface
pressure was equal to the magnitude of in situ earth pressure at tunnel depth
V Ventilation opening was created by following the same procedure described in Stage IV

13
204 
Page 12 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

50 m 40 m
Constructed model for this analysis is shown in Fig. 12.
It should be mentioned that the reason for activating a
surface pressure which has been described at Stage IV,
was to prevent the ground from collapsing into the tunnel
through the openings since the tunneling was carried out
in unstable ground conditions. However, since this simu-
lation is not practically possible in the actual construc-
50 m
tion work, as a solution, the ground will be stabilized by
means of ground improvement work before dismantling
the segments.

3D shell‑spring model

Unlike in the 3D FEM, a sequential construction process

was not simulated in the 3D SSM since the applied soil
(a) loads were calculated separately. Hence, both egress and
ventilation openings were created in the first place, and the
soil loads were applied externally (somewhat similar to a
wished-in-place analysis). The perspective view of the 3D
SSM is shown in Fig. 13.

Comparison of member forces

Egress
Ventilation
opening Induced axial forces and the bending moments in the tun-
opening nel lining due to the formation of cross-passage openings
were compared. For this purpose, axial forces and the
(b)
bending moments of five different cross sections (Fig. 14)
were obtained from both 3D FEM and 3D SSM. Then, the
Fig. 12  Perspective view of the 3D FEM. a Finite element mesh and results from 3D SSM were compared both graphically and
b structural modeling

Fig. 13  Perspective view of the

3D SSM

Fig. 14  Selected cross sections

for member forces comparison

1 2 3 4 5

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 13 of 21  204

quantitatively with the results of 3D FEM and studied the According to both graphical and quantitative compari-
relationship and difference between them. Cross Section 1 sons, it can be determined that the predicted member forces
(CS 1) corresponds to a plane at the center of the ventilation from both models are in accordance with each other. Hence
opening. It should be mentioned that even though this sec- it can be concluded that, for a similar case, one can use more
tion is located at the center of the ventilation opening, it is simplistic 3D SSMs to quantify the member forces rather
not completely opened due to the presence of the steel por- than carrying out complex 3D FEMs. Of particular inter-
tal frame. CS 2 corresponds to a plane located between the est to the CS 1, the 3D SSM has underestimated the axial
center of the ventilation opening and the unopened adjacent forces from 𝜃 = 35° to 120° when compared to 3D FEM.
ring. CS 3 corresponds to a plane located at the unopened The authors attributed this anomaly to the different element
adjacent ring to the ventilation opening (0.7 m from the sizes employed in the two models. Since the tunnel lining
opening). CS 4 corresponds to a plane in the center of the section from 𝜃 = 35° to 120° is a very thin section (200 mm)
egress opening. CS 5 corresponds to a plane located at the compared to other sections, there is a high possibility of the
unopened adjacent ring to the egress opening (0.5 m from two derived results from the two models having a variation
the opening). among them.
According to the graphical comparison for each CS
(Fig. 15), it can be seen that both axial forces and bend-
3D shell‑spring model with considering
ing moments which were derived using the 3D SSM shows
circumferential joints
a good agreement with those derived from the 3D FEM.
Furthermore, Table 5 depicts the quantitative comparison
In the previous analysis, the tunnel lining was considered
between the member forces obtained from 3D SSM and 3D
as a continuous cylinder with reduced flexural rigidity. By
FEM.
doing so, though the segmentation of the lining was taken
Here, R2N and R2M refer to the overall coefficients of deter-
into account, it was not possible to consider the effect of
mination [34] for axial forces (N) and bending moments
circumferential joints. The presence of rotational joints will
(M), respectively. This indicates the global fit between the
affect the overall stiffness of a segmental ring. However, the
member forces derived from 3D SSM and 3D FEM. R2N and
presence of circumferential joints will affect the overall stiff-
R2M were calculated in accordance with Eqs. (4)–(7).
ness of the segmental tube, and most importantly, the load
∑�
NSSM,i − NFEM,i
�2 transmission behavior between two adjacent rings; which
R2N =1− � �2 , (4) is a key factor to consider in a cross-passage design since
the forces from the opened ring should be transferred to the
∑
NSSM,i − MSSM
adjacent unopened ring to prevent overstressing conditions
where in the opened ring. It is therefore unreasonable to neglect
the effect of circumferential joints in a cross-passage design
n
1∑ case. Hence, in this analysis, the previous 3D SSM was rep-
NSSM = N , (5)
n i=1 SSM,i erformed by incorporating circumferential joints to check the
effect of circumferential joints on the lining behavior. Two
∑� �2 adjacent segmental rings are connected using 16 bolts. In the
MSSM,i − MFEM,i 3D SSM, the circumferential joints were simulated by means
R2M =1− �2 , (6)
∑� of simplifying the bolts into a set of shear springs. Generally,
MSSM,i − MSSM
the stiffness of the shear springs ( ks ) is obtained from large-
scale bending and shearing tests for joint-connected seg-
where
ments, yet there are limited published experimental results.
1∑
n For this analysis, the ks was determined in accordance with
MSSM = M . (7) the experimental results suggested by Koyizumi [35]. An
n i=1 SSM,i
idealized model of the 3D SSM is shown in Fig. 16.
Table 5 also presents the ratio between the obtained peak
axial forces induced in the tunnel lining (NSSM ∕NFEM ) and Comparison of member forces
the ratio between the obtained bending moments near the
tunnel crown (around 𝜃 = 0°)(M SSM ∕MFEM ) from the two To assess the effect of circumferential joints on the induced
models. As per the statistical information listed in Table 5, member forces in the tunnel lining due to the formation of
it can also be determined that the member forces obtained the openings, obtained member forces from the above-men-
from the 3D SSM show a strong correspondence with the tioned analysis (3D SSM with considering circumferential
results from 3D FEM.

13
204 
Page 14 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

(a) CS 1 axial force comparision (b) CS 1 bending moment comparision

(c) CS 2 axial force comparision (d) CS 2 bending moment comparision

(e) CS 3 axial force comparision (f) CS 3 bending moment comparision

(g) CS 4 bending moment comparision (h) CS 4 bending moment comparision

(i) CS 5 bending moment comparision (j) CS 5 bending moment comparision

Fig. 15  Comparison of member forces

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 15 of 21  204

joints) were compared with those from the 3D SSM, which axial flow path will get disturbed, and subsequently, it will
conducted without considering circumferential joints (“3D tend to flow around the openings. As a result, the load will
shell-spring model” section). Figure  17 illustrates the be transferred to the unopened adjacent rings (Fig. 2).
selected cross sections for the comparison. CS 1 and CS According to Fig. 18a, it can be seen that in both condi-
3 correspond to a plane located between ventilation/egress tions where the effect of circumferential joints is considered
opening and unopened adjacent ring, whereas CS 2 and CS and not considered in the calculation, the axial force in the
4 correspond to a plane located at the unopened ring next to tunnel lining from 0° to 45° has been increased. However,
the ventilation/egress opening. in the case where the circumferential joints are not consid-
In the undisturbed situation (without any openings), the ered, the axial force trend in the tunnel lining from 45° to
induced axial forces in the tunnel lining tend to flow from 120° has been dipped. This is because the axial force tends
the tunnel crown to the invert in the circumferential direc- to flow in a curved manner around the opening rather than
tion. However, due to the formation openings, the initial flowing right along the vertical boundaries of the opening.
As a result, the axial force in the tunnel lining section right
next to the opening will be less when compared to a section
Table 5  Quantitative comparison between the 3D SSM results and
3D FEM results for each CS
adjacent to it. However, it can be seen that the axial force in
the tunnel lining from 45° to 120° (the same part of the tun-
CS R2N for N NSSM
R2M for M MSSM ∕MFEM nel lining which previously discussed) has been significantly
NFEM
increased after accounted for the circumferential joints to
1 0.619 0.798 0.997 0.966
the calculations. Segmentation between the opened ring and
2 0.990 1.023 1.000 0.942
the unopened adjacent ring has disturbed the load transfer
3 0.976 1.069 0.999 1.017
4 0.980 1.022 1.000 1.010
mechanism between those two rings. As a result, the axial
force has accumulated in the tunnel lining section right next
5 0.960 1.092 1.000 1.032
to the opening (from 45° to 120°).

Fig. 16  Idealized model of Shear Ground

the 3D SSM with considering springs springs
Ring i Ring i+1
circumferential joints ks ks

ks ks
ks : Shear spring

Fig. 17  Selected cross sections

for member forces comparison

1 2 3 4

13
204 
Page 16 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

(a) CS 1 axial force comparision (b) CS 1 bending moment comparision

(c) CS 2 axial force comparision (d) CS 2 bending moment comparision

(e) CS 3 axial force comparision (f) CS 3 bending moment comparision

(g) CS 4 axial force comparision (h) CS 4 bending moment comparision

Fig. 18  Comparison of member forces to check the effect of circumferential joints on lining response

The presence of circumferential joints will alter the single at CS 1 will be lost. This phenomenon will cause additional
tube behavior of the tunnel lining to behave as a number of deformations in that particular section when compared to the
independent rings. Since in this analysis, the tunnel lining case where the circumferential joints were not considered.
is not acting as a single tube anymore, the support from the Subsequently, the bending moments have been increased, as
adjacent ring to the thin strip of tunnel lining (between the indicated in Fig. 18b.
opening and the unopened adjacent ring from 45° to 120°)

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 17 of 21  204

As discussed before, the load transfer behavior between structural capacity of the tunnel lining, as shown in Fig. 19.
the opened ring and the unopened adjacent ring will be dis- Figure 19 illustrates that the induced axial forces and bend-
turbed due to the presence of circumferential joints. Hence, ing moments exceed the capacity of the segmental ring. This
according to Fig. 18c, it can be seen that the axial force stresses the importance of adopting a temporary support sys-
distribution in the unopened adjacent ring has been reduced tem while the construction work of the cross-passages is
as a result of introducing circumferential joints to the calcu- being carried out.
lation. However, as Fig. 18d indicates, a significant change
in bending moment profiles cannot be observed between the Design of temporary support system
two cases. The potential reason for this behavior could be the
unopened condition of the ring where the CS 2 is located. By considering the induced member forces in the tunnel
Due to the fact that the ring is intact, the local stiffness of the lining, prevailing ground conditions, groundwater condition,
ring has not been altered. Subsequently, bending moments size, and the number of openings, a temporary support sys-
has not been changed. The same trend of axial force and tem (steel) which provides complete internal support for the
bending moment distributions discussed above for CS 1 and whole 360° of the tunnel lining across the opened and the
CS 2 can be observed for CS 3 and CS 4, respectively. adjacent fully enclosed rings, was adopted as the temporary
As per the obtained results in Fig. 18a–h, it can be con- support system. The support system is composed of 16 steel
cluded that the consideration of circumferential joints in cal- rings which are connected by longitudinal beams. However,
culation can significantly affect the cross-passage opening- at the opening areas, instead of using full steel rings, steel
induced stress redistribution in the tunnel lining. Therefore, arcs combined with steel columns were used to improve
it is essential to take the effect of circumferential joints into the overall stiffness of the ring. This will subsequently help
account in the numerical or analytical models to simulate the reduce the additional deformations in the segmental lining
prevailing conditions in the tunnel lining. In contrast to the due to the formation of the openings. The idealized cross
3D FEM, the 3D SSM will be the most suitable approach for section of an opened ring section and unopened ring sec-
this purpose due to its capability of considering the joints tion is shown in Fig. 20a, b, respectively. Sectional proper-
explicitly in the calculation. ties of the steel members: 300 × 300–94.0 kg/m ring beam,
Furthermore, it can be seen that the axial forces and bend- 350 × 350–137.0 kg/m column, and 600 × 300–151.0 kg/m
ing moments induced in the segmental lining are consider- longitudinal beam. The steel cage should be firmly fastened
ably high when compared to the undisturbed states of the against the intrados of the tunnel lining to effectively trans-
tunnel lining, which may lead to overstress the segments. fer the induced loads in the tunnel to the support system.
Alternatively, an interaction diagram can be used to check For this purpose, a 50 mm thick cement mortar layer was
whether the induced member forces are exceeding the utilized, as shown in Fig. 20c. Gap elements (springs that
activate only in compression) were used to simulate the mor-
tar layer in the 3D SSM.
10000 The stiffness of the gap element was calculated based on
the suggestions by Yang et al. [36]:
8000
Em Am
k= , (8)
t
Axial Force (kN)

6000
where Em is the elasticity modulus of the mortar material,
4000 Am is the effective area of a single spring, and t is the thick-
ness of the mortar layer.
2000

Comparison of member forces

0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Structural response of the tunnel lining with and without
-2000 installing the temporary support was investigated by com-
Moment (kN-m)
paring the obtained member forces from this analysis (3D
Ring 2 Ring 5 Ring 8 Ring 11 Ring 14
Ring 3 Ring 6 Ring 9 Ring 12 Ring 15
SSM with temporary support system) with those from the
Ring 4 Ring 7 Ring 10 Ring 13 3D shell-spring analysis conducted without installing the
temporary support system (“3D shell-spring model with con-
Fig. 19  Interaction diagram without temporary support system sidering circumferential joints” section). For comparison,
installed

13
204 
Page 18 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

Gap Ground the same cross sections mentioned in “Comparison of mem-

springs
element ber forces” section were used.
As a result of bracing the segmental lining by means
of a fully fledged temporary support system, a significant
amount of induced member forces in the tunnel lining (due
to the formation of openings) has been reduced (Fig. 21).
R Y
It indicates that the induced axial forces in the segmental
X lining has effectively transferred to the steel rings, and
Segmental subsequently, the axial force in the segmental lining has
lining Steel
column reduced. In addition, the induced bending moments in the
Steel arc
tunnel lining have been reduced since the support system
has enhanced the overall stiffness of the segmental rings and
consequently minimized the deflections that may occur due
to segment opening.
To investigate the enhanced stiffness due to temporary
support system, stiffness of the segmental ring, steel ring,
and the composite lining were calculated based on the
(a) equations suggested by Yan et al. [37]: (1) stiffness of
the segmental lining: 2387.04 MPa/m, (2) stiffness of the
Ground steel ring: 218.294 MPa/m, and (3) combined stiffness:
Gap
element
springs 2605.334 MPa/m.
As per the calculated values above, installing the tem-
porary support system has resulted in stiffening the seg-
mental lining in the order of 10%. Table 6 presents the
ratio between the peak axial forces induced in the tun-
R Y nel lining with and without the temporary support system
( Nwithsupport ∕Nwithoutsupport ). Furthermore, it depicts the ratio
X
Segmental
between the obtained bending moments near the tunnel
lining crown ( 𝜃 = 0°) with and without adopting support meas-
Steel ring ures ( Mwithsupport ∕Mwithoutsupport ). According to Table 6, it
can be seen that both axial forces and bending moments
have been reduced in the order of 20% due to the installa-
tion of the temporary support system.
In addition, an interaction diagram was used to examine
how the installation of the bracings has minimized the sus-
ceptibility of reaching the tunnel lining into its structural
(b) capacity (Fig. 22). It shows that, compared to the case
where bracings were not installed (Fig. 19), after adopt-
ing the temporary support system, the segmental rings can
sustain without failure, unlike in the former case.
According to the above discussion, it can be seen that a
temporary support system plays a significant role in cross-
passage construction as it prevents overstressing conditions
in the tunnel lining. Therefore, designing an adequate and
effective support system is of paramount importance in the
entire cross-passage design process. In contrast to the 3D
finite element approach, since components such as beams
and columns can be explicitly considered in the 3D shell-
(c) spring approach, designers can make use of shell-spring
models to perform the design relatively easily and precisely.
Fig. 20  Components of the temporary support system: a opened ring
section, b closed ring section, and c packing agent

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 19 of 21  204

(a) CS 1 axial force comparision (b) CS 1 bending moment comparision

(c) CS 2 axial force comparision (d) CS 2 bending moment comparision

(e) CS 3 axial force comparision (f) CS 3 bending moment comparision

(g) CS 1 axial force comparision (h) CS 1 bending moment comparision

Fig. 21  Comparison of member forces to check the impact of installing the temporary support system on lining response

13
204 
Page 20 of 21 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204

Table 6  Reduction in CS Nwithsupport Mwithsupport ∕Mwithoutsupport the consideration of circumferential joints in the calcula-
member forces due Nwithoutsupport tion would significantly affect the stress redistribution in
to the installation of
temporary support
the tunnel lining. Therefore, circumferential joints are a
1 0.833 0.823
system key element to account for when the design work is car-
2 0.797 0.722
ried out. For this purpose, in contrast to the 3D FEM,
3 0.726 0.887
the 3D SSM will be the most suitable approach to adopt
4 0.809 0.795
due to its capability of considering the joints explicitly
in the calculation.
3. The 3D SSM that was performed to design the tem-
10000 porary support system emphasizes that the temporary
support system plays a major role in cross-passage con-
8000 struction since it prevents overstressing conditions in the
tunnel lining. Compared to the 3D FE approach, because
6000
the components such as beams and columns can be read-
Axial Force (kN)

ily considered in the 3D SSM, it will allow the designer

to quantify the induced loads relatively easily and pre-
4000
cisely.

2000
In theory, it is more appropriate to use a fully coupled
FEM, in which all components are accounted for by means
0 of modeling both soil and tunnel structure in a single model
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
since it may offer the most accurate lining response. This
-2000 type of approach usually requires a large computational
Moment (kN-m)
power to solve. However, as per the above conclusions, it
Ring 2 Ring 5 Ring 8 Ring 11 Ring 14 can be seen that the 3D SSM is a more simplified and reli-
Ring 3 Ring 6 Ring 9 Ring 12 Ring 15
Ring 4 Ring 7 Ring 10 Ring 13 able approach to quantify the cross-passage opening-induced
member forces in the tunnel lining.
Fig. 22  Interaction diagram with temporary support system installed
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank the Mass Rapid
Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) and CH. Karnchang-Sino-Thai
(CKST) Joint Venture for providing required data for the analysis.
Conclusions
Funding  No funding was received for conducting this study.
This study involved assessing the effectiveness of using 3D
finite element analysis and 3D shell-spring analysis to evalu- Declarations 
ate the stress redistribution occurring in the segmental lin-
ing due to the formation of cross-passage openings. For this Conflict of interest  There is no conflict of interest.
purpose, a series of 3D FEMs and 3D SSMs was performed
based on a case study in Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Orange
Line project, Thailand. A comparative study was then car- References
ried out based on the lining response calculated from both
models, and the effectiveness of using each analysis method 1. Ribeiro E, Sousa L (2006) Learning with accidents and damage
in design was discussed. Based on the findings, the following associated to underground works. In: Geotech risk rock tunnels—
practical conclusions can be drawn: sel pap from a course geotech risk rock tunnels, pp 7–39. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1201/​97802​03963​586.​ch2
2. Mashimo H (2002) State of the road tunnel safety technology in
1. The obtained lining response from the 3D SSM showed Japan. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 17:145–152. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
a good agreement with those from the 3D FEM. Hence 1016/​S0886-​7798(02)​00017-2
for a similar case, one can use 3D SSMs to evaluate the 3. Lee T-H, Choi T-C (2017) Numerical analysis of cross passage
opening for TBM tunnels. In: Proceedings of the 19th interna-
stress redistribution induced due to the formation of the tional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering,
cross-passage openings rather than carrying out complex Seoul, pp 1713–1719
3D FEMs. 4. The Professional Standards Compilation Group of People’s
2. The analysis carried out to investigate the effect of cir- Republic of China (PSCG PRC) (2004) JTG D70-2004 Code for
design of road tunnel. Beijing
cumferential joints on the lining behavior showed that

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:204 Page 21 of 21  204

5. ITA COSUF (2019) Current practice on cross-passage design to 22. Surarak C, Likitlersuang S, Wanatowski D et al (2012) Stiffness
support safety in rail and metro tunnels and strength parameters for hardening soil model of soft and stiff
6. Kuyt J (2015) Observed loading behavior during cross passage Bangkok clays. Soils Found. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.s​ andf.2​ 012.​
construction: Brisbane Airport Link Project. Colorado School of 07.​009
Mines 23. Thasnanipan N, Aye ZZ, Teparaksa W (2002) Barrette of over
7. Catsman WCGW (2018) Interaction between soil and tunnel lining 50,000 kN ultimate capacity constructed in the multi-layered
during cross passage construction using artificial ground freezing. soil of Bangkok. In: Deep foundations 2002: an international
Delft University of Technology perspective on theory, design, construction, and performance, pp
8. Murray MJ, Eskesen SD (1996) Design and construction of cross 1073–1087
passages at the Storebaelt Eastern Railway tunnel. In: Tunnel- 24. Narong T, Zaw AZ, Chanchai S, Wanchai T (2002) Performance
ling’97, pp 463–479 of wet-process bored piles constructed with polymer-based slurry
9. Klappers C, Grubl F, Ostermeier B (2006) Structural analyses in Bangkok subsoil. Deep Found 2002:143–157
of segmental lining—coupled beam and spring analyses versus 25. AGATE Consortium (2017) The MRT Orange Line (East Section)
3D-FEM calculations with shell elements. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech- project contract E2: underground civil works Ram Khamhaeng
nol 21:254–255. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tust.​2005.​12.​116 12—Hua Mak section geotechnical interpretative report
10. Zhang Z-Q, Xu J, Wan X-Y (2007) Study on tunnel construction 26. Jayasiri NS (2020) Design and Analysis of Tunnel Cross Passage
mechanics at intersection of horizontal adit and major tunnel in for Rail and Road Tunnel with Emphasis on Tunnels with Seg-
highway. Yantu Lixue(Rock Soil Mech) 28:247–252 mental Lining. Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
11. Li Z, Soga K, Wright P (2016) Three-dimensional finite ele- 27. Wood AMM (1975) The circular tunnel in elastic ground. Géo-
ment analysis of the behaviour of cross passage between cast- technique 25:115–127. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 680/g​ eot.1​ 975.2​ 5.1.1​ 15
iron tunnels. Can Geotech J 53:930–945. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​ 28. Brinkgreve RBJ, Engin E, Swolfs WM (2013) PLAXIS 3D 2013
cgj-​2015-​0273 user manual. Plaxis BV, Delft
12. The British Tunnelling Society and The Institution of Civil Engi- 29. Vermeer PA, Brinkgreve R (1993) Plaxis version 5 manual. AA
neers (2004) Tunnel lining design guide Balkema, Rotterdam
13. International Tunnelling Association (2000) Guidelines for the 30. Peck RB (1969) Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
design of shield tunnel lining (ITA WG 2 report). Tunn Undergr In: Proc 7th ICSMFE, pp 225–290
Sp Technol 15:303–331. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0886-​7798(00)​ 31. O’Reilly MP, New BM (1982) Settlements above tunnels in the
00058-4 United Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction. In: Tunneling’82
14. Murakami H, Koizumi A (1980) On the behaviour of the trans- (1992), pp 173–181
verse joints of a segment. In: Proceedings of the Japan society of 32. Phien-Wej N, Humza M, Aye ZZ (2012) Numerical modeling of
civil engineers. japan society of civil engineers, pp 73–86 diaphragm wall behavior in Bangkok soil using hardening soil
15. Duddeck H, Erdmann J (1985) Structural design models for tun- model. In: Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in
nels in soft soil. Undergr Space, USA, p 9 soft ground. CRC Press, pp 733–740
16. Gall VE, Marwan A, Smarslik M et al (2018) A holistic approach 33. CSISV (2010) 8 (2002) Integrated finite element analysis and
for the investigation of lining response to mechanized tunneling design of structures basic analysis reference manual. Comput
induced construction loadings. Undergr Sp 3:45–60. https://​doi.​ Struct Inc, Berkeley, California, USA
org/​10.​1016/j.​undsp.​2018.​01.​001 34. Wright S (1921) Correlation and causation. J Agric Res
17. Li Z, Soga K, Wright P (2015) Long-term performance of cast- 20:557–585
iron tunnel cross passage in London clay. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech- 35. Koyizumi J (2006) Segment design from allowable stress method
nol 50:152–170. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tust.​2015.​07.​005 to limit state method. Tokyo Jpn Soc Civ Eng
18. Gruebl F (2012) Segmental ring design—new challenges with 36. Yang F, Cao S, Qin G (2018) Performance of the prestressed com-
high tunnel diameters. TAI J (Half Yrly Tech J Indian Chap TAI) posite lining of a tunnel: case study of the yellow river crossing
1:4–9 tunnel. Int J Civ Eng 16:229–241
19. Brand EW, AS B (1977) Soil compressibility and land subsidence 37. Yan Q, Li SC, Xie C, Li Y (2018) Analytical solution for bolted
in Bangkok tunnels in expansive loess using the convergence-confinement
20. Balasubramaniam AS, Oh EYN, Phienwej N (2009) Bored method. Int J Geomech 18:4017124
and driven pile testing in Bangkok sub-soils. Lowl Technol Int
11:29–36
21. Phien-wej N, Giao PH, Nutalaya P (2006) Land subsidence in
bangkok, Thailand. Eng Geol 82:187–201

13