Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

A modelling approach for joint rotations of segmental concrete tunnel MARK


linings

Bo Tvede-Jensen, Morten Faurschou, Thomas Kasper
COWI A/S, Parallelvej 2, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents an approach to determine the nonlinear bending moment – rotation relations for
Segmental lining longitudinal joints of segmental concrete tunnel linings with flat concrete contact areas based on the rules for
TBM tunnel confined concrete and partially loaded areas according to Eurocode 2. It is demonstrated that the resulting
Joint rotations bending moment – rotation relations show better agreement with experimental data than other approaches from
the literature. The proposed approach allows to establish the bending moment – rotation relations for both
serviceability limit state (SLS) and ultimate limit state (ULS) and thereby a tunnel lining design consistent with
Eurocode 2. The practical implications for the design concept of tunnel linings are discussed.

1. Introduction concrete and partially loaded areas according to Eurocode 2 is


presented in Section 4 and validated in Section 5 by comparison with
The effect of the joints in precast segmental concrete linings has experimental data and the aforementioned existing approaches.
been studied extensively in the literature. Muir Wood (1975) proposed
a formula to account for the effect of the joints in uncoupled lining rings 2. Janssen's approach
by an equivalent bending stiffness of a continuous ring. This formula is
often used in engineering practice. Other correction factors to approx- Based on the assumption of a joint deformation zone with a total
imate jointed tunnel lining rings by continuous rings were proposed e.g. length s equal to the joint height l (Fig. 1) such that
by Lee and Ge (2001). Blom (2002a, 2002b) and El Naggar and Δs = εe1·l (1)
Hinchberger (2008) proposed analytical models for segmental tunnel
linings with consideration of the joints. Explicit consideration of the and based on the assumption of linear elastic behaviour such that the
joints by means of rotational springs in bedded beam models for tunnel stress at edge 1 is
linings has become wide-spread (e.g. Duddeck and Erdmann, 1982; ITA σe1 = Ec·εe1 (2)
WG Research, 2000; Koyama, 2003; Grübl, 2006; Do et al., 2013).
Three-dimensional shell-spring models with explicit consideration of Leonhardt and Reimann (1965) derived the following equation for the
the joints have been used e.g. by Klappers et al. (2006) and Arnau and joint rotation φ as a function of the normal force N , the bending
Molins (2012). In beam and shell models, the joint behaviour is often moment M , the Young's modulus of the concrete Ec and the joint height
modelled by nonlinear rotational springs based on the expressions by l
Leonhardt and Reimann (1965) and Janssen (1983) or Blom (2002a, 8N
φ=
2002b). Several authors have investigated the effect of the joints by 2D M 2
9 (1−2 N ·l ) Ec·l (3)
and 3D continuum models of tunnel linings (e.g. Wittke, 2007; Chen
and Mo, 2009; Arnau and Molins, 2011; El Naggar and Hinchberger, Eq. (3) applies to opened joints (joint opening lo > 0 and com-
2012). pressed joint height lc < l ), i.e. in case M > N ·l /6 . The authors demon-
In this paper, the existing analytical expressions by Leonhardt and strated good agreement of this relation with various experimental data.
Reimann (1965) and Janssen (1983) and by Blom (2002a, 2002b) to Janssen (1983) completed the formulation
describe the bending moment – rotation relation of the joints are briefly 12M N ·l
presented in Sections 2 and 3. A new analytical approach to describe φ= for M⩽
Ec·l 2 6 (4)
the bending moment – rotation relation based on the rules for confined


Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: botv@cowi.com (B. Tvede-Jensen), mnf@cowi.com (M. Faurschou), tkas@cowi.com (T. Kasper).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.04.019
Received 19 April 2016; Received in revised form 22 January 2017; Accepted 20 April 2017
Available online 06 May 2017
0886-7798/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Tvede-Jensen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

Sectional forces M
N

Stresses e1

Strains e1

e2

Centre
line
Stress trajectories

Joint deformation zone


s=l

Δs

Joint deformations Fig. 2. Blom's approach.


lc lo
l l ⎛x ⎞ x
t M = N −R1 ⎜ 1 + x2⎟−R2 2
2 ⎝3 ⎠ 2 (9)
Fig. 1. Janssen's approach. Finally, the maximum strain is determined as

8N N ·l fck ·(x1 + x2 )
φ= M 2
for M> εe1 =
9 (2 N ·l −1) Ec·l 6 Ec·x1 (10)
(5)

and derived corresponding expressions for the rotational stiffness. In The bending moment – rotation relation according to Blom's
the remainder of this paper, Eqs. (4) and (5) will be referred to as approach consists of three parts, the first part defined by Eq. (4), the
Janssen's approach. second part defined by Eq. (5) until εe1 = fck / Ec , and the third part
defined by Eq. (9) until εe1 according to Eq. (10) becomes εe1 = εcu3 .
3. Blom's approach Blom's approach allows to determine both SLS bending moment –
rotation relations based on fck as well as ULS bending moment –
Blom (2002a, 2002b) proposed an approach based on the bi-linear rotation relations based on fcd = fck / γc with the partial safety factor γc
stress-strain relation in order to consider the compressive strength of defined in Eurocode 2.
concrete fck . This approach represents a refinement compared to
Janssen's approach as it considers a more advanced stress-strain
4. Proposed approach
relation (Fig. 2). The compressive strength fck and the ultimate strain
εcu3 are basic material parameters as defined e.g. in Eurocode 2 (CEN,
Compared to Blom's approach, the following further refinements are
2004).
made in the proposed approach:
Using the same assumption of a joint deformation zone as in
Janssen's approach, the rotation can be defined by
• The parabola-rectangle stress-strain relation is used to provide a
ε ·l f ·l f ·l better representation of the actual stress-strain relation of concrete.
φ = c3 = ck ↔ x1 = ck
x1 Ec·x1 Ec·φ (6) • An increase of the compressive strength and the strain limits is
considered according to the rules for partially loaded areas and
Then, the stress resultants R1 and R2 can be written as confined concrete in Eurocode 2.
fck ·x1
R1 = and R2 = N −R1
2 (7)
4.1. Eurocode basic equations
With R2 , the length x2 is obtained as
R2 As indicated in Fig. 1, the load transfer through a longitudinal joint
x2 = represents the situation of a partially loaded area. For partially loaded
fck (8)
areas, Section 6.7 Eq. (6.63) in Eurocode 2 allows to increase the
Equilibrium of bending moments results in compressive strength of concrete according to

62
B. Tvede-Jensen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

Ac1 M
fck ,p = ·f ⩽ 3.0·fck N
Ac0 ck (11)
where fck ,p denotes the increased, characteristic compressive strength i
due to the partially loaded area, fck is the normal characteristic
compressive strength, Ac0 is the loaded area and Ac1 is the maximum
design distribution area with a similar shape to Ac0 . For a segment joint
as shown in Fig. 1, this can be simplified to
t
fck ,c = ·f ⩽ 3.0·fck e1
lc ck (12)
i e2
For confined concrete, Section 3.1.9 in Eurocode 2 specifies the
following compressive stress-strain relation with increased character-
istic strength and strains

i=1

i=n
⎛ σ ⎞

i
fck ,c = fck ⎜1 + 5 2 ⎟ for σ2 ⩽ 0.05·fck

Centre
⎝ fck ⎠ (13)

line
⎛ σ ⎞
fck ,c = fck ⎜1.125 + 2.5 2 ⎟ for σ2 > 0.05·fck lc lo
⎝ fck ⎠ (14) l
t
⎛ fck ,c ⎞2
εc2,c = εc2 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ fck ⎠ (15) Fig. 4. Proposed approach.

σ2
εcu2,c = εcu2 + 0.2 fck ,c −fck fck ,c −fck
fck (16) σ2 = for ⩽ 0.05·fck
5 5 (21)
where fck ,c and fck denote the confined and the unconfined character-
istic compressive strength, respectively. The confinement stress is fck ,c −1.125·fck fck ,c −fck
σ2 = for > 0.05·fck
denoted by σ2 . The strains εc2,c and εc2 at which the maximum strength 2.5 5 (22)
is reached and the ultimate strains εcu2,c and εcu2 are defined according and the corresponding strains εc2,c and εcu2,c can be determined from
to Fig. 3. fck , εc2 and εcu2 are basic material parameters defined for all Eqs. (15) and (16). The stress in the centre of each section i is calculated
concrete classes in Eurocode 2. The ULS design strength is defined as as
fcd ,c = fck ,c / γc , with the partial safety factor γc also defined in Eurocode 2.
σi = 0 for εi < 0 (23)
4.2. Application to segment joints ⎛ ⎛ 2⎞
ε ⎞
σi = fck ,c ⎜⎜1−⎜1− i ⎟ ⎟⎟ for 0 ⩽ εi ⩽ εc2,c
To determine the stress distribution and sectional forces in a joint ⎝ ⎝ εc2,c ⎠ ⎠ (24)
based on a given strain distribution, the joint height l is discretised into
n equal sections as shown in Fig. 4. σi = fck ,c for εc2,c < εi ⩽ εcu2,c (25)
Assuming a linear strain distribution characterised by the strains at
The normal force N [kN/m] and bending moment M [kN m/m] in
the two edges of the joint εe1 and εe2 , the strain in the centre of each
the joint are then obtained as
section i is calculated as
n
εe2−εe1 ⎡ l⎤
εi = εe1 + ·(i−0.5) N= ∑ ⎢⎣σi· ⎥⎦
n (17) i =1
n (26)
Eq. (17) is based on εe1 and εe2 being positive for compression. In ⎡ l ⎛l l
n
⎞⎤
case of joint opening, εe2 is a negative fictive strain. The compressed M= ∑ ⎢σi· ·⎜⎝ − ·(i−0.5) ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ n 2 n ⎦ (27)
joint height lc and the joint opening lo are i =1

lc = l for εe2 ⩾ 0 (18) Finally, using the assumption of a joint deformation zone according
to Eq. (1), the joint rotation can be expressed as
εe1
lc = ·l for εe2 < 0 φ = εe1−εe2 (28)
εe1−εe2 (19)

lo = l−lc (20)
4.3. Determination of bending moment – rotation relation for a selected
The confined compressive strength fck ,c is determined from Eq. (12). normal force
Based on Eqs. (13) and (14), the equivalent confinement stress σ2 can
then be calculated as By means of a systematic variation of εe1 and εe2 , strain distributions
can be identified, for which the normal force N according to Eq. (26)
= fck,c 1
Unconfined Confined
1 corresponds to the selected normal force, for which the bending
fck,c
moment – rotation relation shall be determined. The data according
fck
fcd,c to Eqs. (18)–(28) for each of these strain distributions can be saved and
the bending moment – rotation relation can be plotted. A possible
algorithm for this systematic variation is as follows.
2 3 (= 2 ) 1 According to Eq. (12), the maximum possible value of fck ,c is 3fck and
c2 c2,c cu2 cu2,c
it follows from Eqs. (22) and (16) that the maximum possible values of
Fig. 3. Stress-strain relation for confined concrete according to Eurocode 2. σ2 and εcu2,c are

63
B. Tvede-Jensen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

Table 1 180
Key parameters of the Elbe tunnel segment joint tests. 160 Proposed approach
Point D Janssen's approach
Parameter Value
140 Blom's approach
120

ı (MPa)
Segment thickness t (mm) 700
100 Point C
Joint height l (mm) 388
Normal force N (kN/m) 4000 80
Compressive strength fc (MPa) 38.1 60
Young's modulus Ec (MPa) 37,000 Point B Point A
εc2 (‰)
40
2.0
εcu2 (‰) 3.5 20
εcu3 (‰) 3.5 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
x (mm)
3
maxσ2 = f Fig. 6. Stress distributions in the joint for point A to D in Fig. 5.
4 ck (29)

maxεcu2,c = εcu2 + 0.15 (30) It is stated in Schreyer and Winselmann (1998), that the segments in
For M = 0 , the uniform strain εM=0 in the joint can be determined the Elbe tunnel tests did not exhibit any damage even for a measured
using Eqs. (12), (15) and (24). Starting from a strain distribution compressed joint height of only 18 mm. Assuming a rectangular stress
εe1 = εe2 = εM =0 , εe1 is varied in a loop from εM=0 to maxεcu2,c in a chosen distribution, this corresponds to a stress of 4 MN/0.018 m = 222 MPa.
number of steps. For each value of εe1, εe2 is varied to match N according It can be seen in Fig. 6 that the proposed approach predicts a minimum
to Eq. (26) with the selected normal force. For determination of the ULS compressed joint height of approximately 40 mm and a stress of
bending moment – rotation relation, fck ,c in Eqs. (24) and (25) should be 114 MPa at maximum bending moment. This means that the strength
replaced by fcd ,c = fck ,c / γc . limitation of 3.0·fck in Eq. (11) according to Eurocode 2 appears to be
conservative compared to this test.
5. Verification and discussion of the proposed approach
5.2. Dutch segment joint tests
5.1. Elbe tunnel tests
Hordijk and Gijsbers (1996) carried out segment joint rotation tests
Schreyer and Winselmann (1998) presented the results of a segment
for different normal force levels. The key parameters are shown in
joint rotation test for the 4th Elbe tunnel tube. The key parameters are
Table 2. For the simulation of these tests, measured values of strength
shown in Table 1. For a B45 concrete used in the test, the German code
and Young's modulus are available and have been used.
DIN1045 specifies a Young's modulus of 37 GPa. The 20 cm cube
Tests were carried out with and without bolts in the joints. The
strength of a B45 has been converted into an equivalent cylinder
authors concluded that the influence of the bolts on the bending
strength of 45 MPa/1.18 = 38.1 MPa.
moment – rotation relation was insignificant (Fig. 7).
For the Elbe tunnel test, both the proposed approach and Janssen's
In the following, the experimental data of the tests without bolts are
approach provide very good agreement with the experimental data (Fig. 5).
compared with the proposed approach (Fig. 8), with Janssen's approach
The stress distributions in the joint for point A to D on the bending moment
(Fig. 9) and with Blom's approach (Fig. 10). For each normal force, two
– rotation curve in Fig. 5 according to the different approaches are shown
tests were carried out with opposite bending direction. An exception is
in Fig. 6. According to the proposed approach, the joint starts to open at a
the test with 4400 kN/m normal force, for which only one test was
bending moment of 251 kNm/m (point A) and has opened to half the joint
made.
height at a bending moment of 512 kNm/m (point B). Points C and D are
Hordijk and Gijsbers observed that the initial rotational stiffness
defined by a joint rotation of 10 and 35‰, respectively. Although Blom's
was lower than expected for low normal force levels and increased with
approach represents a refinement compared to Janssen's approach, it shows
increasing normal force. This could be explained by the fact that the
less good agreement with the experimental data due to the fact that it does
surfaces of the joints were not in full contact for low normal forces. This
not consider the increased compressive strength (the maximum moment is
observation is reflected in Figs. 8–10. The initial stiffness from all three
too low) and increased strain limits (the maximum joint rotation is too low)
modelling approaches is very similar and agrees well with the observed
for partially loaded areas and confined concrete. It can be observed in
initial stiffness for higher normal force levels. It can further be observed
Fig. 6 that there is good agreement between the different approaches up to
in Figs. 8–10, that the proposed approach provides the best agreement
point B (joint half open) and that the difference becomes larger for larger
with the experimental data. Similar to the observation made for the
joint rotations (point C and D).
Elbe tunnel tests, Blom's approach provides less good agreement
800
compared to both the proposed approach and Janssen's approach due
Point C: ij = 10 ‰ to the fact that it does not consider the increased compressive strength
Bending moment M (kNm/m)

700
600 Table 2
Point B: Point D: ij = 35 ‰
500 Key parameters of the Dutch segment joint tests.
M = 512 kNm/m
400 Parameter Value
300 Experimental data
Point A:
Proposed approach Segment thickness t (mm) 350
200 M = 251 kNm/m
Joint height l (mm) 158
Janssen's approach
100 Normal force N (kN/m) 200–4400
Blom's approach Compressive strength fc (MPa) 57
0 Young's modulus Ec (MPa) 32,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
εc2 (‰) 2.2
Joint rotation ij (‰) εcu2 (‰) 3.0
Fig. 5. Bending moment – rotation relation: Comparison of Elbe tunnel experimental data εcu3 (‰) 3.0
with the proposed approach, Janssen's approach and Blom's approach.

64
B. Tvede-Jensen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

300 300
Without bolts
N = 4400 kN/m Experimental data N = 4400 kN/m
250 With bolts, positive bending
Bending moment M (kNm/m)

250 Blom's approach

Bending moment M (kNm/m)


With bolts, negative bending
200 N = 3000 kN/m N = 3000 kN/m
200
N = 2300 kN/m
150
N = 1600 kN/m 150
+ N = 2300 kN/m
100 N = 1600 kN/m
N = 900 kN/m
100
50 N = 900 kN/m
N = 200 kN/m
50
+
0 N = 200 kN/m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
Joint rotation ij (‰) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 7. Summary plot of all experimental data, with and without bolts in the joints. Joint rotation ij (‰)
Fig. 10. Comparison between the Dutch segment joint experimental data and Blom's
300 approach.
Experimental data
N = 4400 kN/m
250 Proposed approach 350
Bending moment M (kNm/m)

Experimental data
300 Trendlines
N = 3000 kN/m

Bending moment M (kNm/m)


200
N = 2300 kN/m 250
150
N = 1600 kN/m 200
100
N = 900 kN/m 150
50
N = 200 kN/m 100

0 50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Joint rotation ij (‰)
0
Fig. 8. Comparison between the Dutch segment joint experimental data and the proposed 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
approach. Joint rotation ij (‰)
Fig. 11. Extrapolation of the Dutch segment joint experimental data.
300
Experimental data
N = 4400 kN/m
250 Janssen's approach
Bending moment M (kNm/m)

In Janssen's approach, linear elastic material behaviour is assumed.


Thus, there is no limit for the magnitude of the compressive stresses in
200 the joint. The maximum bending moment according to Janssen's
N = 3000 kN/m approach therefore always corresponds to a very (infinitely) narrow
N = 2300 kN/m stress triangle at the joint edge with a maximum stress such that the
150
integral of the triangle corresponds to the normal force. Consequently,
N = 1600 kN/m the maximum bending moment according to Janssen is simply
100 M = N ·l /2 , i.e. for the Dutch segment joint M = N ·0.079 m (Fig. 12).
N = 900 kN/m In Blom's approach and in the proposed approach, the compressive
50 stresses in the joint are limited to the compressive strength. Therefore,
N = 200 kN/m at the maximum bending moment, the necessary compressed joint
height lc to transfer the normal force increases with increasing normal
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 force (Fig. 13). As a consequence, the lever arm of the normal force
Joint rotation ij (‰) decreases and the maximum bending moment decreases after having
reached a peak (Fig. 12). Compared to Blom's approach, the proposed
Fig. 9. Comparison between the Dutch segment joint experimental data and Janssen's
approach considers an increased compressive strength due to partially
approach.
loaded area (Fig. 13). As a consequence, the peak value of the
maximum bending moment is higher in the proposed approach and is
(the maximum moment is too low) and increased strain limits (the reached at a higher normal force (Fig. 12). After having reached the
maximum joint rotation is too low) for partially loaded areas and peak value, the maximum bending moment decreases more rapidly in
confined concrete. The test specimens exhibited no visible cracks or the proposed approach compared to Blom's approach. This can be
only hairline cracks within the tested range of rotations. explained by the fact that the transfer of higher normal forces requires a
If the normal force is varied, the maximum possible bending larger compressed joint height lc , which according to Eq. (12) leads to a
moments for the Dutch segment joint are shown in Fig. 12. The decrease of the compressive strength in the proposed approach
experimental maximum bending moments in Fig. 12 are based on (Fig. 13). In contrast to that, the compressive strength in Blom's
extrapolations of the experimental data as shown in Fig. 11. approach is constant. Finally, when the normal force fully utilises the

65
B. Tvede-Jensen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

1000 200
Experimental data
900 180
Proposed approach

Bending moment M (kNm/m)


800 Janssen's approach 160
max M (kNm/m)

700 Blom's approach 140


600 120
500 100
400 80 SLS lower N=2000 kN/m
300 60 SLS/ULS upper N=2000 kN/m
200 ULS lower N=2000 kN/m
40
100 ULS lower N=2700 kN/m
20
0 ULS upper N=2700 kN/m
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Normal force N (kN/m)
Joint rotation ij (‰)
Fig. 12. Maximum bending moment as a function of normal force: Comparison between
Fig. 14. SLS and ULS bending moment – rotation relations for the Dutch segment joint.
Dutch segment joint experimental data, the proposed approach, Janssen's approach and
Blom's approach.

used in the Dutch tests for a normal force of 2000 kN/m with estimated
180
Proposed approach lower and upper characteristic values of the compressive strength of the
160 N = 11000 kN/m
Blom's approach concrete fck ,0,05 = fcm −8 MPa = 49 MPa and fck ,0,95 = fcm +
140 8 MPa = 65 MPa .
120 N = 13404 kN/m For ULS verifications, ULS bending moment – rotation relations
N = 7500 kN/m
ı (MPa)

100 should be used. ULS bending moment – rotation relations based on the
80 lower design concrete strength provide the largest joint rotations. In
case of coupled rings, they also provide the largest coupling forces and
60
peak moments in the segments.
40 With the proposed approach, it can be verified that the joints are
20 N = 4400 kN/m able to transfer the ULS hoop forces considering a realistic bending
0 moment. It should be noted that the exceedance of the normal force
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
capacity of the joints represents a true ULS failure. Furthermore, it can
x (mm)
be verified that the joints do not exhibit unacceptable rotations, leading
Fig. 13. Stress distributions in the Dutch segment joint at maximum bending moment for to unacceptable tunnel lining deformations, which in the (theoretical)
different normal forces according to the proposed approach and Blom's approach. extreme case may also represent a true ULS failure e.g. due to snap-
through problems of the lining.
strength over the whole joint height, no bending moment can be ULS calculations form the basis for splitting verifications at the
transferred. The maximum normal force that can be transferred joints. It should generally be noted that adequate reinforcement at the
across the segment joint according to Blom's approach is joints needs to be provided for the rules of partially loaded areas and
57 MPa·158 mm = 9006 kN/m (Fig. 12). According to the proposed confined concrete to be valid. For the ULS segment bending verification
approach, it is 57 MPa· 350 mm/158 mm ·158 mm = 13404 kN/m of linings with uncoupled rings, ULS bending moment – rotation
(Figs. 12 and 13). relations based on the upper concrete strength may be used, as this
results in the largest bending moments in the segments.
6. Implications for tunnel lining design As an example, Fig. 14 also presents the ULS bending moment –
rotation relations for the segments used in the Dutch tests. The lower
The proposed approach provides the most realistic representation of and upper ULS relations are based on fcd,0,05 and fck,0,95, respectively.
the stress-strain behaviour of the concrete at the joints. In Section 5, it In ULS, it is distinguished in Fig. 14 between N as a favourable
could be shown that it provides the best agreement with experimental effect (N = 1.0·2000 = 2000 kN/m) and N as an unfavourable effect
data both in terms of the bending moment – rotation relation and in (N = 1.35·2000 = 2700 kN/m).
terms of the maximum bending moment as a function of normal force. It The designer needs to consider that for the different ULS verifica-
allows a detailed study of the behaviour of the tunnel ring considering tions, bending moment – rotation relations either based on N as a
the actual stress conditions in the joints and therefore provides the basis favourable effect or based on N as an unfavourable effect may be
for an engineering assessment of SLS and ULS joint design in compli- governing.
ance with Eurocode 2. The proposed approach may be used to verify the
joints of segmental linings in accordance with Eurocode 2 as follows: 7. Conclusions
For SLS verifications, SLS bending moment – rotation relations
should be used. For deformation and water tightness verifications of the The proposed modelling approach accounts for the nonlinear
tunnel lining, it is conservative to base the bending moment – rotation material behaviour of concrete according to Eurocode 2 based on
relations on the lower characteristic value of the concrete strength. For simple mathematical expressions, which can easily be incorporated into
SLS bending moments and crack widths in the segments of linings with the lining design. It provides a rational approach to consider and verify
uncoupled rings, the upper characteristic value of the concrete strength the joints in tunnel linings in compliance with Eurocode 2, both in SLS
would be conservative. For SLS bending moments and crack widths in and ULS. It allows detailed studies of the stresses in the joints based on
the segments of linings with coupled rings, the lower characteristic simple beam models or shell models with nonlinear rotational springs
value of the concrete strength may be conservative. This is motivated representing the joints. Adequate reinforcement at the joints needs to
by the fact that peak moments in coupled rings increase with decreasing be provided for the rules of partially loaded areas and confined concrete
flexural stiffness of the rings (Grübl, 2006). As an example, Fig. 14 to be valid. The reinforcement needs to provide sufficient robustness to
presents the SLS bending moment – rotation relations for the segments avoid local failure mechanisms for the stress conditions in the vicinity

66
B. Tvede-Jensen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 67 (2017) 61–67

of the joints. The modelling approach for the joints also influences the Duddeck, H., Erdmann, J., 1982. Structural design models for tunnels. In: Jones, M.J.
(Ed.), Tunnelling'82. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 83–92.
segment bending verification. El Naggar, H., Hinchberger, S.D., 2008. An analytical solution for jointed tunnel linings in
The presented approach is relevant mainly for the design of tunnel elastic soil or rock. Can. Geotech. J. 45, 1572–1593.
linings for the permanent situation. The design approach is valid El Naggar, H., Hinchberger, S.D., 2012. Approximate evaluation of stresses in degraded
tunnel linings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 43, 45–57.
independently of the soil-structure interaction modelling approach Grübl, F., 2006. Modern design aspects of segmental lining. International Seminar on
applied in the analysis. It should be noted that temporary situations Tunnels and Underground Works LNEC, Lisbon 29–30 of June 2006.
during transport and handling, lining installation and TBM advance as Hordijk, D.A., Gijsbers, F.B.J., 1996. Laboratoriumproeven Tunnelsegmenten. Report
Number 96-CON-R0708/03. TNO-Bouw, Delft.
well as geometrical constraints with respect to gasket arrangement ITA WG Research, 2000. Guidelines for the design of shield tunnel lining. Tunn. Undergr.
often affect or even govern the required lining thickness. Space Technol. 15 (3), 303–331.
Janssen, P., 1983. Tragverhalten von Tunnelausbauten mit Gelenktübbings. PhD thesis
Technische Universität Braunschweig.
References
Klappers, C., Grübl, F., Ostermeier, B., 2006. Structural analyses of segmental lining –
coupled beam and spring analyses versus 3D-FEM calculations with shell elements.
Arnau, O., Molins, C., 2011. Experimental and analytical study of the structural response Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21 (3–4) 6 pages.
of segmental tunnel linings based on an in situ loading test. Part 2: Numerical Koyama, Y., 2003. Present status and technology of shield tunneling method in Japan.
simulation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 26, 778–788. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18, 145–159.
Arnau, O., Molins, C., 2012. Three dimensional structural response of segmental tunnel Lee, K.M., Ge, X.W., 2001. The equivalence of a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining to a
linings. Eng. Struct. 44, 210–221. continuous ring structure. Can. Geotech. J. 38, 461–483.
Blom, C.B.M., 2002a. Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils. PhD Leonhardt, F., Reimann, H., 1965. Betongelenke. Versuchbericht, Vorschläge zur
thesis Technische Universiteit Delft. Bemessung und konstruktiven Ausbildung. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton
Blom, C.B.M., 2002b. Background document “Lining behaviour – analytical solutions of DAfStb, Heft 175.
coupled segmented rings in soil”. Technische Universiteit Delft. Muir Wood, A.M., 1975. The circular tunnel in elastic ground. Géotechnique 25 (1),
Chen, J.S., Mo, H.H., 2009. Numerical study on crack problems in segments of shield 115–127.
tunnel using finite element method. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24, 91–102. Schreyer, J., Winselmann, D., 1998. Eignungsprüfungen für die Tübbingauskleidung der
CEN European Committee for Standardization, 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete 4. Röhre des Elbtunnels – Suitability tests for the segmental lining for the 4th Elbe
structures – Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings (EN1992-1-1). tunnel tube, Hamburg. Tunnel 98 (2), 30–37.
Do, N.A., Dias, D., Oreste, P., Djeran-Maigre, I., 2013. 2D numerical investigation of Wittke, W., 2007. Stability analysis and design for mechanized tunnelling. Geotechnical
segmental tunnel lining behaviour. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 37, 115–127. engineering in research and practice, WBI Print 6, < www.wbionline.de > .

67

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi