Analysis of Shield Tunnel

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2004; 28:5791 (DOI: 10.1002/nag.327)

Analysis of shield tunnel
W. Q. Ding
1
, Z. Q. Yue
2,n,y
, L. G. Tham
2
, H. H. Zhu
1
, C. F. Lee
2
and T. Hashimoto
3
1
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
2
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
3
Geo-Research Institute, Osaka, Japan
SUMMARY
This paper proposes a two-dimensional nite element model for the analysis of shield tunnels by taking
into account the construction process which is divided into four stages. The soil is assumed to behave as an
elasto-plastic medium whereas the shield is simulated by beamjoint discontinuous model in which curved
beam elements and joint elements are used to model the segments and joints, respectively. As grout is
usually injected to ll the gap between the lining and the soil, the property parameters of the grout are
chosen in such a way that they can reect the state of the grout at each stage. Furthermore, the contact
condition between the soil and lining will change with the construction stage, and therefore, dierent stress-
releasing coecients are used to account for the changes. To assess the accuracy that can be attained by the
method in solving practical problems, the shield tunnelling in the No. 7 Subway Line Project in Osaka,
Japan, is used as a case history for our study. The numerical results are compared with those measured in
the eld. The results presented in the paper show that the proposed numerical procedure can be used to
eectively estimate the deformation, stresses and moments experienced by the surrounding soils and the
concrete lining segments. The analysis and method presented in this paper can be considered to be useful
for other subway construction projects involving shield tunnelling in soft soils. Copyright # 2004 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: subway construction; shield tunnelling; soilstructure interaction; numerical procedure;
nite element method; ground settlement; lining; soft soils
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 1950s, urban developments in many cities have experienced continuous growth and
expansion. Because of the large populations and shortage of land resources, these cities have
always had a strong demand for ecient, economic and environmental friendly urban civil
infrastructure systems to accommodate the daily and routine travels of thousands and millions
of commuters. The subway system is an obvious solution to meet the demand. To minimize the
Contract/grant sponsor: Research Grant Council of Hong Kong SAR Government
Contract/grant sponsor: Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust
Received 23 August 2002
Revised 9 July 2003
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 30 August 2003
y
E-mail: yueqzq@hkucc.hku.hk
n
Correspondence to: Dr. Q. Z. Q. Yue, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam
Road, Hong Kong, China.
impact on the existing trac during construction, tunnelling is usually adopted for the
construction of the subway. Because of its eciency and safety, shield tunnelling is one of the
most popular tunnelling methods for the construction of subway tunnels in soft soil ground.
Over the last 30 years, the shield tunnelling method has experienced continuous improvement
and development. New shield tunnelling methods including the earth pressure balanced shield,
the slurry shield, the simultaneous backll grouting as well as some improved grouting materials
have been introduced and developed in recent years [1].
Shield tunnelling will inevitably induce ground deformation and the surrounding soils will
also act on the shield lining segments. Quantitative and accurate prediction of such soil and
structure interaction will be of signicant importance in many aspects including lining segment
design, construction safety, ground settlements, potential damage to existing structures and
facilities, and operation of the subway system.
Peck [2] developed an empirical method for the ground settlement associated with tunnelling
in soft soils by assuming the settlement trough to be a Gaussian distribution curve. The
actual ground settlement is predicted based on the estimation of the ground loss ratio. This
method was used and improved by many engineers and researchers such as Clough and
Schmidt [3] and Rowe et al. [4]. Recently, Schmidt [5] has proposed the semi-empirical
error function method for the estimation and prediction of ground settlement. Though these
empirical or semi-empirical methods are useful in the evaluation of the ground settlements
caused by shield tunnelling construction, they must be applied with caution as they may not be
applicable to situations signicantly dierent from the cases on which they are based on
Wang [6].
Another important design parameter is the load acting on the lining. Such load can be
taken to be either the sum of the overburden pressure and water pressure or that determined
using Terzaghis formula, SchulzeDuddeck method or other empirical methods. It is noted
that such load only considers the nal state that is after the completion of the shield tunnelling.
To provide a better simulation of the interaction between the lining and soil, beam
spring models, in which the lining and soil are modelled by beam and spring, respectively,
can be adopted. As shield tunnel lining is composed of several concrete segments, a number of
researchers and engineers had also taken into consideration the eects of the segment ring
joints [7, 8] in their studies. Lee and Ge [9] suggested an equivalent method to determine
the correction factor for approximating a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining as a continuous
ring structure under a plane strain condition. The present literature review has revealed that
there are three widely accepted methods for modelling the eects of shield segment joints
[10, 11].
Furthermore, shield tunnelling usually adopts staged construction and supporting techniques.
Consequently, the responses such as soil displacements and lining forces induced by the
construction will be dierent at dierent stages. It is believed that an optimal construction
process can improve the safety and reduce the disturbance to the surrounding soils. Hence, it
becomes very important to take into account the actual construction process in the shield
tunnelling design [12, 13]. Due to the complex nature of the problems, one may have to resort to
numerical approach for analysing the problems. It is well known that the nite element method
is a powerful tool for the analysis of soilstructure interaction in geomechanics and it has been
applied to tunnel excavations by taking into account the construction process, the dierent soil
layers, complex geometries, various loading conditions and soillining interfaces [14]. Though
shield tunnelling, strictly speaking, is a three-dimensional and time-dependent soilstructure
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2004; 28:5791
W. Q. DING ET AL. 58
interaction problem [1518], many engineers and researchers have demonstrated that the two-
dimensional nite element models can still give a fairly accurate prediction on the behaviour of
the tunnel [12, 19, 20]. Benmebarek et al. [21] proposed two methods for taking into account the
three-dimensional eects in a two-dimensional model. Further assessment of two-dimensional
models in analysing shield tunnelling was reported in a recent publication by Negro and de
Queiroz [22].
In this paper, we propose a two-dimensional nite element method for analysing shield
tunnels during construction. The construction of each lining segment of a shield tunnel is
divided into four stages. To model the discontinuous displacements between segments, a beam
joint discontinuous model is adopted for simulating the shield action. Moreover, the changes
from uid and solid states of the backll grout at dierent stages are also considered.
Furthermore, stress-releasing coecients are used to account for the dierent contact conditions
between the soil and external lining surface. These coecients are estimated based on eld
measured settlements and professional experiences. The numerical results obtained by the
present model are compared with those measured during the construction of the No. 7 Subway
Line Project in Osaka, Japan. The comparison shows that the proposed model can be used to
estimate the deformation, stresses and moments experienced by the surrounding soils and the
concrete lining segments during tunnelling.
2. BACKGROUND
During shield tunnelling, the shield will advance segment by segment with a balanced soil
pressure that supports the soil. After cutting through a length of a segment, the lining will
then be installed. The lining is essentially an assembly of concrete segments linked by bolts
which joints will be covered with waterproof exible plates. Before the shield tail is
detached, grout will be injected into the gap between the surrounding soil and the lining.
After grouting, the shield will move forward. As the grout hardens and consolidates, the
surrounding soil will deform and induce pressures on the lining. Consequently, the ground will
settle gradually as well. All movements will cease only when a state of equilibrium state is
reached.
Field observations have conrmed that the ground movements and the earth pressure on the
lining segments have developed according to the construction process of the shield tunnelling
[1, 21, 2325]. Factors aecting ground movements due to shield tunnelling have been
summarized in recent publications by Nomoto et al. [25] and Hashimoto et al. [1, 26]. The
construction process is one of the most important factors. Closer study of the eld observations
has revealed that the construction process for a segment can be divided into four stages below:
Stage 1}Balanced cutting and shield supporting. This stage includes face cutting and
shield advancing. The existing soil pressure in the cutting face is balanced by pressure
from the machine behind the cutter. Consequently, the stress changes due to the cutting and
the balancing pressure will not result in signicant soil movement. Furthermore, the
surrounding soil outside the shield will not be able to release its stress due to the rigid
support of the shield. However, one has to consider the possible disturbance on the surrounding
soil due to over-cutting, snaking and friction between the shield and the soil when the shield
advances.
ANALYSIS OF SHIELD TUNNEL 59
Stage 2}Backll grouting. The second stage is to install the lining segments and to backll the
gap at the shield tail with grout. The lining will form a circular ring within the shield tail cover
plate. Once the shield moves forward, a gap between the soil and the lining segment will be
created. A grout must be simultaneously injected to backll the gap space. The amount of grout
is usually equal to 1.21.3 times of the gap volume and the grout pressure is between 0.2 and
0:4 MPa: Such backll grouting has three functions:
*
preventing soil deformation immediately after the shield tail is detached,
*
stabilizing lining segments, and
*
improving tunnel water-proof performance.
The soil will start to interact with the lining although the grout is still in a uid state. It is
noted that this backll grouting serves a controlling measure to prevent soil deformation.
Excessive grout volume and pressure may lead to soil heave around the shield tail and must be
avoided.
Stage 3}Grout hardening. This stage is a transient stage. The grout will harden and consolidate,
and the soil deformation will also increase with time though its rate decreases. The lining
segments and ground soil interaction will increase with time until an equilibrium state is
reached. It is, therefore, necessary to assess the eects of the grout hardening and pressure
distribution on the response of the lining structure at this stage.
Stage 4}Hardened grout. In the nal stage, the grout becomes hardened and gains its full
stiness and strength. The settlement will almost cease to increase.
3. NUMERICAL PROCEDURES FOR SHIELD TUNNELLING
In this paper, a two-dimensional nite element model is developed for modelling shield
tunnelling process. As such process is a very complicated one, exact simulation is almost
impossible. Therefore, the model only tries to take into account major factors, namely the
complex properties of the soil materials, the snaking of the shield direction, the volume loss, the
grout properties and pressure, the joints of lining segment, and the construction process.
Following the standard nite element procedures, one has to obtain the initial stress before the
construction simulation can be carried out. The initial stresses at any point i is calculated by the
following equations:
s
y0

g
j
H
j
s
x0
K
0
s
y0
P
w
P
w
1
where s
y0
and s
x0
are the vertical and horizontal initial earth stresses, respectively, g
j
is the unit
weight of the jth earth stratum above the point; H
j
is the corresponding thickness; K
0
is the
lateral earth pressure coecient, and P
w
is the water pressure at the point.
As pointed out in Section 2, the construction of a tunnel segment can be divided into
four stages. As the soils behave non-linearly during the construction, an elasto-plastic
model is adopted to model the soil. Similarly, the lining segment and the joints between
lining segment are modelled by adopting appropriate curved members. Dierent models
are adopted to simulate the grout as its behaviour is very much dierent at the various
stages. To take into account such non-linear complex problems, an incremental-
iterated technique with constant stiness within each construction stage is used in the
analyses. A ow chart illustrating the above FEM simulation for the soilstructure interaction
analysis of shield tunnelling is presented in Figure 1. Mathematically, the solution process
Input calculating data and controlling information
Calculate initial or current earth stress and stress releasing equivalent nodal forces { }
rea
F
Construction stage (stress releasing step): j=1
Yes
Form element and global stiffness matrix: [ ] [ ] +
=
j
ini
K K
1
Calculate newly added and stress releasing nodal forces at

current construction stage: { } { }
add
j
rea
j
F F ,
Solve FEM equation, gain: { }
jk

Calculate incremental strain and stress: { } { }
jk jk
, ,
then gain total displacement, strain and stress.
Soil and contact element nonlinear analysis
New over-excessive stress element exists?
Precision satisfied ?
( )
00001 . 0
1
<

p
jk k j
p
jk
e
jk

Construction stage: j 4
No
Output results
j=j+1
Iteration step:
k N
k=k+1
Yes
Nonlinear equivalent
nodal forces:
{ }
non
jk
F
Yes
No
No
Iteration step: k=1
Figure 1. Flow chart of the nite element simulation for shield tunnelling.
can be expressed as
K
ini

j
B1
DK
z
_ _
fDd
jk
g a
j
fDF g
rea
fDF
j
g
add
fDF
jk
g
non
2
where j 14 and k 1N; N is the number of non-linear iterative steps; K
ini
is the initial
stiness matrix of soil ground and structure (if it exists) before excavation; DK
z
is the
increment or decrement stiness matrix of the soil ground excavated and the supporting
structure installed or removed at the construction stage z; fDF g
rea
is the vector of the stress
releasing equivalent nodal forces due to the stress state of the previous construction process
acting along the currently excavated boundary. For one construction (excavation) process, it is
due to the initial stress state; fDF
j
g
add
is the vector of newly added nodal load at construction
stage j; fDF
jk
g
non
is the vector of current incremental equivalent excessive nodal forces caused
by non-linear stress. fDF
jk
g
non

e
_
V
e
fBg
T
fDs
a
g dV where fBg is strain matrix and fDs
a
g is
the incremental non-linear stress vector; fDd
jk
g is the vector of incremental nodal displacement
at the stage j and iterative step k; a
j
is the stress releasing coecient at construction stage j:
The iteration for each stage will cease after 10 iterative steps, that is N 10; or the prescribed
iterative precision is achieved. In the analysis, the iterative precision is chosen to be
Ds
e
jk
Ds
p
jk
s
jk1
Ds
p
jk
50:00001 3a
where Ds
e
jk
and Ds
p
jk
are the elements of the vectors of incremental elastic stress matrix fDs
e
jk
g
and plastic stress matrix fDs
p
jk
g at the stage j and the iterative step k; respectively, and s
jk1
is
the corresponding total stress at the stage j and the iterative step k 1: Ds
e
jk
and Ds
p
jk
can be
estimated using the following equations:
fDs
e
jk
g DBfDd
jk
g 3b
fDs
p
jk
g D
p
BfDd
jk
g 3c
where D and D
p
are the elastic and plastic material property matrices, respectively.
After solving Equation (2), one can obtain the total displacement fd
i
g; strain fe
i
g and stress
fs
i
g at the construction stage i i 1; 2; 3; 4 using the following equations:
fd
i
g fd
0
g
i
j1
N
k1
fDd
jk
g
fe
i
g fe
0
g
i
j1
N
k1
fDe
jk
g
fs
i
g fs
0
g
i
j1
N
k1
fDs
jk
g 4
where fd
0
g and fe
0
g are the initial displacement and strain respectively, they are usually set to
zero. fs
0
g is the initial earth stress; fDe
jk
g and fDs
jk
g are the vectors of the incremental strain
and stress releasing step (construction stage) j and the iterative step k; respectively.
Furthermore, the lining internal forces (hoop force, shear force and bending moment) can
then be determined from the displacements.
4. A CASE STUDY: SHIELD TUNNELLING FOR OSAKA NO. 7 SUBWAY LINE
Extensive monitoring was carried out during the construction of a tunnel of the Osaka Subway
Line. The results are readily available. This case history is used to assess the accuracy that can be
achieved by the present approach. For completeness, a brief of the relevant information will be
given and more detailed information can be found in the report prepared by the Japanese
Research Society of Construction Maintenance Techniques [27].
4.1. General
Figure 2 shows the general arrangement and longitudinal prole of the No. 7 Subway Line
Project in Osaka, Japan. The subway is between the Morinomiya Station and the Osaka
Business Park Station. Its east bound tunnel line is about 970:4 m long. Its west bound tunnel
line is about 974:5 m long. The tunnels are about 1630 m below the soil ground surface. The
lining is of reinforced concrete and each segment is 1:2 m wide and 280 mm thick, and has the
outer diameter 5:3 m: Two 5:44 m in diameter earth pressure balanced shield machines with
synchronous grouting technique were used to construct the tunnels. In this paper, we will focus
on Section A of the west bound tunnel.
4.2. Ground conditions
Figure 3 shows the soil stratum characteristics at Section A of the tunnels. There are three
dierent clayey and sandy soil strata, i.e. AC1, AC2 and AS1, above the proposed tunnel. The
tunnel is located at about 20 m below the ground. The tunnel passes through a sand layer, AS2,
Figure 2. General layout of the Osaka No. 7 Subway Line: (a) line plan; and (b) tunnel prole.
and a clayey layer, AC3. The thicknesses of these layers are about 11 and 5 m; respectively.
Below the AC3 stratum, there are a sandy stratum, AS4, and a clayey stratum, AC4. The
permanent ground water level is at about 3 m below the ground surface. The standard
penetration test results revealed that the three upper clayey soil strata (AC1AC3) had a SPT N-
values from 2.5 to 11.8 whereas the three sandy soil strata (AS1AS3) had SPT N-values ranging
from 34 to 43.05 (Figure 3 and Table I).
4.3. Instrumentation system for monitoring
In order to verify the shield tunnelling design and the settlement prediction, an instrumentation
system was installed before and during the tunnel construction to monitor the ground settlement
Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) value
-40
Depth (m)
Ac4
As3 -30
As2
Ac3
-20
-10
As1
Ac2
Soil layer: Ac1
0
Tunnel
50
Figure 3. The soil layer of Section A.
Table I. The adopted ground soil parameters.
Soil
layer
name
Thickness
of per layer
H
j
m
Average
value of
SPT N
Elastic
modulus
E kPa
Poissons
ratio m
Internal
friction
angle j 8
Cohesion
C kPa
Unit
weight
g
j
kN=m
3
Lateral
pressure
coecient K
0
AC1 2.0 2.50 8500 0.43 0.0 25.0 16.0 0.75
AC2 5.5 6.11 20774 0.43 0.0 61.1 16.7 0.75
AS1 3.0 34.00 39500 0.35 37.6 0.0 16.6 0.55
AS2 11.0 43.05 49003 0.35 40.4 0.0 16.5 0.55
AC3 5.0 11.80 40120 0.43 0.0 118.0 17.0 0.75
AS3 7.0 42.64 48572 0.35 40.3 0.0 16.5 0.55
AC4 26.0 13.80 46920 0.43 10.0 138.0 17.4 0.75
and lining structural performance. Figure 4 shows the arrangement of the ve settlement
monitoring points in the soil right above the west bound tunnel. Figure 5(a) shows the
arrangement of eight earth pressure cells installed to measure the soil pressure acting on the
outer surface of the concrete lining segments. Gauges are installed to measure moment as well as
hoop forces. Their locations are shown in Figure 5(b) and 5(c), respectively.
4.4. Constitutive model for the surrounding soil
An elasto-plastic constitutive model was used in this paper for the soils surrounding the tunnel.
The model employs the classical DruckerPrager yield criterion and the Reyes elasto-plastic
matrix [28] after a careful examination of the soil properties [12]. The following empirical
equations are used to determine the Youngs modulus E kN=m
2
the internal friction angle j,
the lateral pressure coecient K
0
and Poissons ratio m for the sandy soil:
E 3800 1050N 5a
j 15
15N
_
5b
K
0
1 sin j
0
5c
depth (m)
S5 -16.3
S4 -15.8
S3 -14.8
S2 -10.8
S1 -0.25
examed in this paper
West Bound
being constructed and to be constructed
East Bound
S1 ~ S5 Measuring points
0
180
90 270
0
o'
y
z
Section A-A
Figure 4. The locations of the settlement gauges.
m
K
0
1 K
0
5d
where j is the internal friction angle, j
0
is eective internal friction angle, K
0
is the lateral
pressure coecient, N is the number of standard penetration test (SPT) value.
EP2(131)
EP3(180)
EP8(58)
EP1(90)
EP4(224)
EP5(272)
EP6(310)
EP7(355)
90
180
270
(a)
M01(75)
M02(116)
M03(151)
M04(188)
M05(214)
M06(261)
M07(288)
M08(323)
270
180
90
(b)
AF01(75)
AF02(116)
AF03(151)
AF04(188)
AF05(214)
AF06(261)
AF07(288)
AF08(323)
AF09(5)
M09(5)
M10(37)
AF10(37)
270
180
90
0
0
(c)
0
Figure 5. The locations of: (a) earth pressure cells; (b) moment gauges; and (c) hoop force gauges.
For the clayey soils, we used the following empirical relations:
E 170q
u
6a
K
0
OCR
0:3
0:5 6b
c
q
u
2
6c
q
u

N
50
6d
m
K
0
1 K
0
6e
where c is the cohesion kN=m
2
; q
u
is the unconned compression strength (MPa), and OCR is
the over-consolidation ratio.
The parameters of the seven soil strata are given in Table I.
4.5. Modelling of the shield lining
Figure 6 shows a typical reinforced concrete segment with a circular-arc-shape. For such
segment, one can adopt curved beam elements to simulate its action (Figure 7). As exible plates
were used to ensure exible joint contact between the concrete segments, the joints will
smoothen the stress concentration but they have some inherent discontinuous characteristics in
transfering deformation. In this study, we have proposed a special joint element to represent the
exible contact between any two adjacent segments. A detailed description of the model is given
in Appendix A.
Based on the test results, the following lining parameters are adopted: the Youngs modulus
E 3:5 10
7
kN=m
2
; the rectangular cross-section area A 0:28 m
2
; the bending moment of
inertia I 1:83 10
3
m
4
; the joint parameters: k
W
2:5 10
8
kN m=rad=m
2
; k
n
6:55
10
7
kN=m
3
; k
s
2:5 10
7
kN=m
3
:
4.6. Modelling of the grout
In the analysis, both the grout stiness and grout pressure have to be modelled adequately and
the details of the models are outlined as follows:
(a) Grout stiness. In this study, we adopted the Goodman joint model to represent such grout
contact property [28]. In this model, the element thickness is assumed to be zero and the
stinesses are dened in terms of the normal and tangential stiness. The normal stiness K
n
joint
segment
Figure 6. Shield tunnel lining segment.
depends on the grout deformation modulus whereas the tangential stiness K
s
is related to the
sliding feature of the contact.
If the normal contact stress s
n
is compressive, i.e. it has positive value, one can assume that
the yield criterion of the contact element will follow the MohrCoulomb function, that is
f jt
s
j c
j
s
n
tgj
j
7
where c
j
and j
j
are, respectively, the cohesion and internal friction angle of the contact element,
t
s
is the total shear stress on the contact element.
One can show readily that the elastic property matrix D and plastic property matrix D
p
for
the ideal plastic and plane strain situation can be expressed as
D
K
s
0
0 K
n
_ _
8a
D
p

1
S
0
K
2
s
K
s
S
1
K
s
S
1
S
2
1
_ _
8b
where S
0
K
s
K
n
tg
2
j
j
; S
1
K
n
tgj
j
:
The grout initially is in uid state and it hardens gradually. Therefore, dierent parameters
should be used to simulate the behaviour of the grout. A brief description is given below to
explain how to adopt dierent grout parameters at the dierent construction stages.
In Stage 2, the grout is in the uid state, and therefore, the tangential contact stiness K
s
is
close to zero. Although the liquid is incompressible, the trapped air voids can be compressed.
Assuming 15% of the total grout volume is occupied by air voids, the relation between the
grouting pressure and volumetric strain can be expressed as
e
v
0:15 1
P
a
P
a
P
g
_ _ _ _
9
where P
a
and P
g
are the atmospheric pressure and the grouting pressure, respectively. In the
numerical calculations, we assumed P
a
0:1 MPa and P
g
0:15 MPa: The value of the normal
contact stiness K
n
can be estimated using the equation below
K
n

P
g
e
v
t
0
10
where t
0
is the thickness of shield tail void and it equals to 0:07 m for the present shield tunnel.
n
s
2 1
Joint
Beam
Figure 7. Beamjoint discontinuous model.
In Stages 3 and 4, the grout hardens and its stiness increases gradually. The tangential
contact stiness is given as:
K
s

K
n
21 n
11
where n 0:3: The normal stiness K
n
can be estimated by using the following empirical
relation [12]:
K
n

E
t

150q
u
t
12
where q
u
is the unconned compressive strength of grout, t is the thickness of contact element.
In this study, q
u
are taken to be 0.2 and 3:0 MPa for Stages 3 and 4, respectively. The normal
and tangential stinesses adopted at various stages are given in Table II.
(b) Distribution of grout pressure. Two models of grout pressure distribution (Figure 8) are
considered in the analysis. The rst model (GP-A) assumes that the grout pressure is uniform
and such model has the advantage of being simplicity, but, it may not be able to model the
decrease in pressure as the grout ows away from the grout hole. To overcome the above
Table II. The adopted parameters of the contact elements.
Shear stiness Normal stiness Internal friction Cohesion
Construction stage K
s
kN=m
3
K
n
kN=m
3
angle j 8 c kPa
No. 1 } } } }
No. 2 100 2:381 10
4
0.0 0.0
No. 3 1:648 10
5
4:286 10
5
20.0 100.0
No. 4 2:473 10
6
6:429 10
6
50.0 3000.0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
G
r
o
u
t
i
n
g

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
GP-A GP-B
Grouting hole
Segment joint
0
270
180
90
95
143
170
217
232
242
303
19
Figure 8. Grout pressure models.

limitation, a non-uniform pressure distribution is assumed in the second model (GP-B).
Mathematically, the grout pressure at the hoop angle y is dened as
Py P
1
P
2
cos
y b
2
p4y b4p 13
where b is the grout hole angle; P
1
is the pressure at y b; P
2
is the pressure at y p b:
As two grout holes are used in the present case and they are symmetric about the vertical axis,
the non-uniform model of the grouting pressure distribution can be expressed as follows:
Py 2P
1
P
2
2
i1
cos
y b
i
2
p4y b
1
; y b
2
4p 14
where b
1
and b
2
are the grout hole angles. In the present study, P
1
5:47 kPa; P
2
77:32 kPa;
b
1
1438; b
2
2178:
4.7. Modelling of the stress release: stress releasing coecient
The releasing coecient for each construction stage is determined according to the eld
displacements and experience.
Depending on the degree of snaking and volume loss, the stress release coecient is taken to
be 0.0 to 0.1 in the rst stage. In the second stage, the lining structure is installed and the grout is
injected at prescribed pressure to ll up the gap between the lining and the ground. The pressure
applied will not only restrain some of the ground movements but it may cause heaving, if the
pressure is high. Consequently, the coecient depends on the grout pressure. In the third stage,
the stress releasing is mainly caused by the gap of the shield tail, and therefore, the coecient
will depend on the gap. In the fourth stage, it depends on the stresses that have not yet released.
The releasing coecients for the rst to the fourth construction stages are chosen to be 0.10,
0.45, 0.3 and 0.15, respectively.
4.8. FEM mesh and boundary conditions
The initial nite element mesh adopted for the analysis is shown in Figure 9. In the nite element
simulation, the soil is modelled by 512 elements containing 545 nodes. Lining segments and their
joints are simulated with 30 beam elements and six joint elements, respectively. Thirty contact
elements are used to model the interface between the ground and lining segments. The left and
right boundaries of the mesh are laterally restricted. The bottom boundary is vertically restricted
whereas the top surface is assumed to be a free boundary.
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Section A of the Osaka No. 7 subway line is analysed in this paper and the results are compared
with the eld measurement data documented in the report prepared by the Japanese Research
Society of Construction Maintenance Technique [27].
5.1. Soil displacements and settlements
Figure 10 shows the original and deformed meshes around the shield tunnel before grouting and
after completion of Stage 4. In Table III, the displacements at four points around the tunnel are
tabulated. They are the results before grouting and after the completion of the Stage 4 using the
uniform grout pressure models. The settlement at the crown point A is about 7 mm: The
horizontal displacement at the points C and D are about 23 mm: The heave at the bottom
point B is about 11 mm: These results have shown that the soil displacements can gain
substantial increases with the progress of the construction stages.
The computed settlements above the tunnel after completion of Stage 4 are compared to the
measured values in Figure 11. The results show that the computed settlements agree fairly well
with the measured ones.
5.2. Lining bending moment, hoop force and earth pressure
Figure 12 shows the measured and computed bending moments of shield lining at the Stages 2, 3
and 4. In Figure 13, the measured and computed hoop forces of the shield lining segments are
compared for the Stages 2, 3 and 4. Furthermore, the earth pressure at the Stage 4 only
is depicted in Figure 14. These results were obtained using the uniform grout pressure model
GP-A. In those gures, the corresponding predicted values using the conventional semi-
analytical design method at the Stage 4 are also presented. The conventional method is
summarized in Appendix B for an ease of reference. Details of this conventional method can be
found in [10, 11, 29].
From Figure 12, it can be observed that the variations of the measured and the present FEM
predicted bending moments with respect to the hoop angle y and the construction stages are
basically similar although there are some signicant discrepancies at the measurement locations
M10 y 758 and M08 y 3238: At those two locations, the measured moments have
irregular tends with the construction stages 24, which indicates the measured moments might
not be correct. The absolute values of the FEM predicated moments are generally greater than
those of the measured moments. The moments predicted using the conventional method after
Figure 9. Initial nite element mesh.
the completion of Stage 4 are generally less than those measured values, which could cause an
unsafe design.
From Figure 13, it can be observed that the variations of the measured and the present FEM
predicted hoop forces with respect to the hoop angle y and the construction stages are basically
similar although there are some signicant discrepancies at the measurement locations AF01
y 758: Basically, the hoop forces increased as the construction stage progressed, which
cannot be predicted using the conventional method. Furthermore, the measured hoop forces are
not symmetric about the vertical centre (y 0 or 1808), while the predicted results are symmetric
about the vertical axis. The percentage relative dierences between each set of the measured and
FEM predicted hoop forces are between 113 and 35%. A majority of the relative dierences
are within 20%: Furthermore, the predicted results using the conventional method at the
Stage 4 have the lowest variations with respect to the hoop angle y:
A
B
C D
20(mm) 0
Scale of total displacement from an
original point to its corresponding point:
(a)
A
C D
B
original point to its corresponding point:
Scale of total displacement from an
20(mm) 0
(b)
Figure 10. Deformed meshes of around the tunnel: (a) before grouting; and (b) after completion of Stage 4.
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Settlement (mm)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

Measured value
GP-A
Figure 11. Variation of settlement with depth.
Table III. The displacements of the typical points around tunnel.
Point A Point B Point C Point D
Construction
stage Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical
1 0 2.24 0 2.95 0.92 0.12 0.92 0.12
2 0 5.32 0.03 6.06 1.39 0.38 1.45 0.38
3 0.08 6.28 0.05 9.55 1.86 0.93 2.34 0.69
4 0.11 6.67 0.11 11.21 2.14 1.64 2.85 1.19
Note: The positive values are horizontal rightward and vertical upward; unit: mm.
From Figure 14, it is clear that the present FEM predicted earth pressure values are very close
to those measured results at the cell Nos. EP8 y 588; EP1 y 908 and EP7 y 3558 and
are about two times greater than those measured results at the other cell Nos. EP2 to EP6.
Furthermore, the present FEM predicted result generally decreases as the hoop angle y increases
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
L
i
n
i
n
g

r
i
n
g

h
o
o
p

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Stage 2 & measured Stage 2 & GP model A
Conventional design method Location of joints
Figure 13. Variation of measured and predicted hoop forces with hoop angle at the
completion of construction stages 2, 3 or 4.
-70
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50
70
90
110
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
.
m
)
Conventional design method Location of joints
Figure 12. Variation of measured and predicted bending moments with hoop angle at the
completion of construction stages 2, 3 or 4.
from 0 to 1808 and then increases as the hoop angle y increases from 180 to 3608; which is
considered to be reasonable. However, the results predicted with the conventional method have
four cycles of increasing and decreasing. The four cycles correspond to the hoop angle intervals
04y5908; 9084y51808; 18084y52708 and 27084y53608; which are evidently caused by the
basic assumptions associated with the semi-analytical formation of the conventional method
(see Appendix B). Moreover, the predicted results using the conventional method are close to
those predicted using the present FEM method. The predicted results do not have signicant
dierences.
From the above analysis and discussions, one can have the following general ndings:
(a) The present method can be used to make a best prediction on the hoop forces and a
good prediction on the earth pressures and a reasonable prediction on the bending
moment. The predicted results can be used for a safe design for each of the three
construction stages.
(b) The in situ measurements have a best performance for the hoop forces, a good
performance for the earth pressure and a reasonable performance for the bending
moments. There seems a need to develop more reliable senses for in situ measurement of
the bending moment in the lining.
(c) The conventional method could give a reasonably good prediction on the hoop forces,
an adequate estimation on the earth pressure and an under-estimation on the bending
moment after the completion of the Stage 4. The use of this conventional method in
design estimation of the bending moment needs a great care.
(d) These results have also shown that the mechanical responses of the shield tunnel
construction at the construction stages can be predicted by the numerical procedure
presented above. It is noted that it is very important to select correct soil parameters in
the numerical prediction.
40
70
100
130
160
190
220
250
280
310
340
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
N
o
r
m
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
Measured Present method
Conventional Location of joints
Figure 14. Variation of earth pressure after completion of Stage 4.
5.3. Joint displacement and rotation
Table IV gives the relative normal displacement, shearing displacements and rotational angular
displacements between two nodes of the joint elements after the completion of Stage 4. From
Table IV, it can be observed that the relative normal displacements vary between 0.015 and
0:022 mm: The relative shearing displacements vary between 0.000012 and 0:0014 mm: The
relative rotational angular displacements vary between 1:23 10
7
and 1:23 10
5
: Such small
relative displacements at the joints can be justied by the combined factors that the joint
stiness values (k
W
2:8 10
8
kN m=rad=m
2
; k
n
6:55 10
7
kN=m
3
; k
s
2:5 10
7
kN=m
3
)
are much greater than those of the grout stiness values between 100 and 6:429 10
6
(see
Table II), these values are close to the lining concrete bending stiness (say, Youngs modulus/
thickness E=h 3:5 10
7
=0:28 1:25 10
8
kN=m
3
) in magnitude, as well as there is an
arching eect along the circular lining.
Table IV. The relative displacements at joints of lining segment at the completion
of construction stage No. 4.
y 198 958 1708 2328 2428 3038
GP-A Du mm 1.91 10
2
2.19 10
2
1.60 10
2
1.79 10
2
1.91 10
2
2.13 10
2
Dv mm 1.62 10
4
9.60 10
4
8.54 10
4
1.22 10
5
6.15 10
5
1.35 10
3
DW 8 8.83 10
6
1.12 10
5
9.51 10
6
3.05 10
7
3.87 10
6
5.08 10
6
GP-B Du mm 1.80 10
2
2.12 10
2
1.53 10
2
1.72 10
2
1.84 10
2
2.03 10
2
Dv mm 1.46 10
4
9.01 10
4
8.55 10
4
1.66 10
5
5.09 10
5
1.42 10
3
DW 8 9.31 10
6
1.23 10
5
1.06 10
5
1.23 10
7
4.62 10
6
4.81 10
6
Note: Du; Dv and DW are relative normal displacement, relative shearing displacement and relative rotational angular
displacement between two nodes of joint element, respectively.
100
130
160
190
220
250
280
310
340
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
N
o
r
m
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
GP-A GP-B
Figure 15. Eect of grout pressure models: earth pressure.
5.4. Eects of grout pressure models
The eects of the distribution of the grout pressure were also studied by adopting both uniform
(GP-A) and non-uniform (GP-B) models. The results are plotted in Figures 1517. They have
shown the following phenomena:
(a) The GP-A model can result in an up to 24% higher earth pressure value than those
associated with the GP-B model since the grout pressure in GP-A model is assumed much
higher than that in GP-B model (Figures 8 and 15). By comparing the corresponding
results in Figures 14 and 15, it is evident that the earth pressure values predicted from the
conventional method is well covered by the earth pressure ranges predicted using the GP-
A and GP-B over the entire hoop angles.
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
.
m
)
GP-A GP-B
Figure 16. Eect of grout pressure models: bending moment.
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
(degree)
L
i
n
i
n
g

r
i
n
g

h
o
o
p

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
GP-A GP-B
Figure 17. Eect of grout pressure models: hoop force.
(b) The two grout pressure models can produce very close results in the beam bending
moments although it is interesting to note that the GP-B model has slightly higher earth
pressure values around y 908; y 1808 or y 2708 (see Figure 16).
(c) The lining ring hoop forces predicted with the GP-A model is uniformly slightly (about
7%) greater than those predicted with the GP-B model over the entire hoop angle 04
y53608 (see Figure 17).
6. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the main characteristics of the tunnel construction process, the properties of the grout
and the stiness of the lining and its joints, we have presented a two-dimensional nite element
model for shield tunnels. In the analysing, we pay special attentions to the contact factors
between the soil and the lining structure. These factors include the gap closing, the grout
pressure distribution and hardening. Based on the analysis, we may have the following
conclusions:
*
The results obtained by the present FEM method, in particular, the settlements, the earth
pressures and the hoop forces, are very close to the values measured on site. The measured
values are well within the ranges of the numerical results. Furthermore, although the
present predicted lining bending moment values are generally greater than those measured
on site, they can be used for a safe design. These ndings have shown that the numerical
procedure presented in this paper is practical and reliable for evaluation, design and
displacement prediction for shield tunnel construction.
*
The hardening of the grout materials with the process of shield tunnelling can be simulated
by varying parameters such as the stiness, the internal friction angle and cohesion at
dierent construction stages.
*
The two grouting pressure models give similar results for the displacements, moments and
forces. It may be concluded that the grouting pressure models do not have a signicant
eect on the behaviour of the tunnelling in soil ground.
*
Although the conventional method have been used for prediction of the lining bending
moment, hoop forces and earth pressures after the completion of the construction stages,
the predicted values could be lower and the method could not take into account many
complex factors and construction stages that the present FEM method can accommodate
in the design calculations.
*
The above FEM analysis has further shown that numerical procedures can make adequate
predictions on the mechanical behaviour of complex soilstructure interaction system such
as shield tunnelling during and after construction. Such numerical predictions can enhance
the design and construction measures of geotechnical works in soft soils. It is noted that it
is also critical to select correct values for the mechanical parameters of soils in the
theoretical predictions. Good knowledge and experience of the local soft soil conditions
and properties are always assets in selection of the parameter values for prediction.
Additional experience on the selection of the soil parameters can be gained from the
comparisons between the predicted and measured mechanical responses that have been
presented in this paper.
APPENDIX A: BEAMJOINT DISCONTINUOUS MODEL
As shown in Figure 7, the beamjoint discontinuous model uses several curved beam elements
for a segments and a joint element for a joint. Figure A1 depicts a curved beam element and
Figure A2 shows a joint element in the forms of a double node.
By using the Castiglianos second theorem [12] we can establish the relation of the nodal
forces F
i
fN
i
Q
i
M
i
g
T
with the nodal displacements d
i
fu
i
v
i
W
i
g
T
i 1; 2 in a local co-
ordinate system n; s: It can be shown readily that:
F
1
F
2
_ _

K
11
BK
11
BK
11
K
22
_ _
d
1
d
2
_ _
K
d
1
d
2
_ _
A1
where K is the stiness matrix and B is the correlative matrix between the two nodal forces of
the beam element.
N
1
u
1
Q
1
v
1
1
2
P
M
1
1
Q
2
v
2
M
2

2
N
2
u
2
x
z
o
o
Figure A1. Nodal forces and displacements of curved beam model.

2
1
s
n
2
1
z
x o

Figure A2. Double nodes of joint and nodal direction angles in global co-ordinates.
K and B can be expressed as
K
ii
d
i
k
1
33
A2
B
cos b sin b 0
sin b cos b 0
Rcos b 1 R sin b 1
_
_
_
_
A3
where R and b are the radius and central angle of the curved beam, respectively; d
i
k
is element of
the exibility matrix, and
d
i
kl
d
i
lk
A4
d
1
11

R
EA
0:5b 0:25 sin 2b
R
3
EI
1:5b 2 sin b 0:25 sin 2b d
2
11
A5
d
1
12

R
2EA
sin
2
b
R
3
EI
cos b 0:5 sin
2
b 1 d
2
12
A6
d
1
13

R
2
EI
b sin b d
2
13
A7
d
1
22

R
EA
0:5b 0:25 sin 2b
R
3
EI
0:5b 0:25 sin 2b d
2
22
A8
d
1
23

R
2
EI
cos b 1 d
2
23
A9
d
1
33

R
EI
b d
2
33
A10
In Equations (A4)(A10), E; A and I are the elastic modulus, cross-sectional area and moment
of inertia of the curved beam, respectively.
The local stiness K can be assembled into the global stiness K
G
in a global co-ordinate
system as follows:
K
G
T K T
T
A11
where T is a transformation matrix between the local co-ordinate system and the global
co-ordinate system; and T
T
is the transpose of the matrix T:
The discontinuity of the two adjacent segments is described by the following relative
displacements with three variables between the two nodes 1 and 2 in the local co-ordinate
system n; s
Du u
1
u
2
Dv v
1
v
2
DW W
1
W
2
A12
where s is dened as the direction of the bisecting angle between the two beams with a positive
direction inward to opening; n is the direction perpendicular to s with a positive direction as
counterclockwise. Accordingly, Du is the relative normal displacement of the joint along the n
direction, Dv is the relative shearing displacement along the s direction, and DW is the relative
rotational angular displacement; u
i
; v
i
; W
i
; where i 1; 2; are the displacement components at
the node i along the local co-ordinate directions respectively.
Furthermore, the forcedeformation relationship of the joint element can be expressed as
follows:
fF g KfDdg A13
where
fF g fN Q Mg
T
; fDdg fDu Dv DWg
T
; K
k
n
0 0
0 k
s
0
0 0 k
W
_
_
_
_
(Figure A3), and N; Q; M are the two forces along the n and s directions and the moment of the
joint element, respectively.
Expressing u
i
; v
i
; W
i
as fdg fu
1
v
1
W
1
u
2
v
2
W
2
g
T
; we can have the following equation:
fDdg C fdg
C
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
_
_
_
_
A14
As a result, we obtain the following equation:
K
J
C
T
K C
K
G
T K
J
T
T
_
A15
where K
J
is the stiness matrix of the joint element in the local co-ordinates, T is a co-ordinate
transformation matrix, K
G
is the stiness matrix of the joint element in the global co-ordinates
k
k
n
k
s
Figure A3. The stiness k
n
; k
s
; k
W
in normal, shearing and rotational directions of joint.
x; z; and
K
G

A
1
A
3
0 A
1
A
3
0
A
2
0 A
3
A
2
0
k
W
0 0 k
W
A
1
A
3
0
A
2
0
sym: k
W
_
_
_
_
A16
where A
1
k
n
sin
2
g k
s
cos
2
g; A
2
k
n
cos
2
g k
s
sin
2
g; A
3
k
s
k
n
cos g sin g; g is intersec-
tion angle between the opposite direction of local co-ordinate s and the direction of global co-
ordinate x (Figure A2).
It is noted that the exible plate has a large eect on the bending behaviour of the tunnel
lining [30]. When the bending moment exceeds a certain value at the joint, the joint will open.
The rotational stiness coecient of the segment joint is, therefore, a non-linear function of the
relative rotation angle DW as follows:
k
W
k
W
1
k
W
2
e
lDW
k
W
2
A17
where k
W
1
; k
W
2
; l are constants that can be determined from the bending test for the segment
joint.
APPENDIX B: THE SEMI-ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR SHIELD TUNNELLING
For comparisons, we also present an analysis using the semi-analytical method [10, 11, 29] for
shielding tunnelling. As the details are already document in the reference, we only provide a
highlight of the key points of the method.
The loads acting on the shield lining is shown in Figure B1. In the gure, P
0
is overload, and
usually equal to 10 kN=m
2
; R
0
is external radius of shield lining; R
c
is radius of middle line of
shield lining; g is gravity of lining; P
e1
and P
w1
are, respectively, the vertical earth pressure and
water pressure, respectively, acted on the up side of shield lining. The lateral earth pressure and
water pressure vary linearly and act on both sides of the shield lining. They are equal to q
e1
and
q
w1
at the top of shield lining and q
e2
and q
w2
at the bottom of shield lining; P
e2
and P
w2
are
respectively the vertical earth pressure and water pressure respectively acted on the bottom side
of shield lining; P
g
is the vertical resistance of lining weight acted on the bottom side of shield
lining.
For sandy clay, the earth pressure and water pressure are assumed to act on the lining
separately. If the overburden thickness is two times larger than the external diameter D of shield
lining, an eective overburden thickness h
0
h
0
52D should be used and it is determined by
following Terzaghis formula (Figure B2) below:
h
0

B
1
1 c=B
1
g
K
0
tan f
1 e
K
0
tan fH=B
1

P
0
g
e
K
0
tan fH=B
1
B1
B
1
R
0
cot
p=4 f=2
2
_ _
B2
where c; f and g are cohesion, internal friction angle and unit weight of soil layer respectively;
K
0
is lateral pressure coecient; H is overburden thickness. For many soil layers condition, the
average parameter values with a weighting factor of the layer thickness will be used in Equations
(B1) and (B2).
Figure B1. Loads acting on the shield.
The distribution of earth resistance is triangular in shape and its acting range is shown in
Figure B1. The magnitude of the earth resistance q
k
is determined by following equation:
q
k
k d B3
where k is the soil resistance coecient, d is the deformation at the horizontal quadrant point of
shield lining, and d can be calculated by following formula:
d
2p
e1
p
w1
q
e1
q
w1
q
e2
q
w2
R
4
c
24EI 0:0454 k R
4
c
B4
Having these parameters determined, the internal forces of the shield lining can be easily
computed. The formulae for the calculation of the beam bending moment and lining ring hoop
force are given in Table B1.
Figure B2. The overburden thickness h
0
determined by Terzaghis formula.
Table B1. The internal forces caused by the dierent loads.
Loads Beam bending moment Lining ring hoop force
Vertical earth pressure and
water pressure: P
e1
P
w1
M
1
4
1 2 sin
2
y
P
e1
P
w1
R
2
c
N P
e1
P
w1
R
c
sin
2
y
Lateral earth pressure and
water pressure (rectangle part):
q
e1
q
w1
M
1
4
1 2 cos
2
y
q
e1
q
w1
R
2
c
N q
e1
q
w1
R
c
cos
2
y
Lateral earth pressure and
water pressure (triangle part):
q
e2
q
w2
q
e1
q
w1
M
1
48
6 3 cos y
12 cos
2
y 4 cos
3
y
q
e2
q
w2
q
el
q
wl
R
2
c
N
1
16
cos y 8 cos
2
y
4 cos
3
yq
e2
q
w2
q
el

q
wl
R
c
Horizontal earth resistance: q
k
kd
For 04y4
p
4
;
M 0:2346 0:3536 cos yk
d R
2
c
For
p
4
4y4
p
2
;
M 0:3487 0:5 sin
2
y
0:2357 cos
3
y k d R
2
c
For 04y4
p
4
;
N 0:3536 cos y k d R
c
For
p
4
4y4
p
2
;
N 0:7071 cos y cos
2
y
0:7071 sin
2
y cos yk d R
c
Lining unit weight: g For 04y4
p
2
;
M
1
8
p y sin y
5
6
cos y
1
2
p sin
2
y g R
2
c
For
p
2
4y4p;
M
3
8
p p y sin y
5
6
cos yg R
2
c
For 04y4
p
2
;
N p sin y p y sin y
p sin
2
y
1
6
cos yg R
c
For
p
2
4y4p;
N py sin y
1
6
cos yg R
2
c
Note: The values beyond the expressed range can be easily obtained as the loads and lining are symmetric.
Table B2. Adopted values for the design parameters.
No. Parameters Design values
1 Lining segment: concrete plate
2 External diameter of segment D 5:3 m
3 External radius of shield lining R
0
2:65 m
4 Radius of middle line of shield lining R
c
2:51 m
5 Width of segment B 1:2 m (Calculating width:/m)
6 Thickness of segment h 0:28 m
7 Elastic modulus of segment E 3:5 10
7
kN=m
2
8 The bending moment of inertia I 1:83 10
3
m
4
9 Overburden thickness H 16:35 m
10 Water head at the top of lining H
w
13:35 m
11 Overload P
0
10 kN=m
2
12 Soil resistance coecient k 20000 kN=m
3
Parameter of earth layer: mainly
sandy clay, see Table I and Figure 3
13 The soil average unit weight g 16:52 kN=m
3
14 The soil cohesion c 17:96 kPa
15 The soil internal friction angle f 25:928
16 The lateral pressure coecient K
0
0:378
17 The unit weight of water g
w
10 kN=m
3
Table B2 gives the values of the design parameters adopted in the present study and
Table B3 tabulate the parameters computed by using these equations. These parameters are
then used to determine the beam bending moment and lining ring hoop force in the tunnel
lining.
APPENDIX C: NOMENCLATURE
Symbols in Main Text
s
y0
vertical initial earth stress
s
x0
horizontal initial earth stress
g
j
unit weight of the jth earth stratum above the point
H
j
thickness of the jth earth stratum above the point
K
0
lateral earth pressure coecient
P
w
water pressure at the point
N number of non-linear iterative steps
K
ini
initial stiness matrix of soil ground and structure (if it exists) before excavation
DK
z
increment or decrement stiness matrix of the soil ground excavated and the
supporting structure installed or removed at the construction stage z
DF
rea
vector of the stress releasing equivalent nodal forces due to the stress state of the
previous construction process acting along the currently excavated boundary
Table B3. Results of the semi-analytical design method.
No. Parameters Design values
1 Then B
1
R
0
cot
p
4
f
2
2
_ _
B
1
4:785 m
2 h
0

B1 1
c
B1g
_ _
K
0
tan f
1 e
K
0
tan f
H
B
1
_ _
P
0
g
e
K0 tan f
H
B1
_ _
9:708 m52D
h
0
2D 10:6 m
3 Unit weight of lining g 25 h 0:7 kN=m
2
4 Vertical earth pressure acted on the up side

of shield lining
P
e1
g g
w
h
0
69:097 kPa
5 Water pressure acted on the up side of
shield lining
P
w1
g
w
H
w
133:5 kPa
6 Lateral earth pressure and water pressure
q
e1
q
e1
K
0
g g
w
h
0
h=2 26:46 kPa
q
w1
q
w1
g
w
h
0
h=2 134:9 kPa
q
e2
q
e2
K
0
g g
w
h
0
R
0
R
c
38:82 kPa
q
w2
q
w2
g
w
h
0
R
0
R
c
185:1 kPa
10 d
2pe1pw1qe1qw1qe2qw2R
4
c
24EI0:0454kR
4
c
0:329 mm
11 q
k
k d 6:582 kPa
DF
j
add
vector of newly added nodal load at construction stage j
DF
jk
non
vector of current incremental equivalent excessive nodal forces caused by non-
linear stress
B strain matrix
Ds
a
vector of incremental non-linear stress
Dd
jk
vector of incremental nodal displacement at the stage j and iterative step k
a
j
stress releasing coecient at construction stage j
Ds
e
jk
vector of incremental elastic stress at the stage j and iterative step k
Ds
p
jk
vector of incremental plastic stress at the stage j and iterative step k
s
jk1
total stress at the stage j and iterative step k 1
D elastic material property matrix
D
p
plastic material property matrix
d
0
vector of initial displacement
e
0
vector of initial strain
s
0
vector of initial earth stress
d
i
vector of total displacement at stage i
e
i
vector of total strain at stage i
s
i
vector of total earth stress at stage i
De
jk
vector of incremental strain at stress releasing step j and iterative step k
Ds
jk
vector of incremental stress at stress releasing step j and iterative step k
E Youngs modulus
m Poissons ratio
j internal friction angle
j
0
eective internal friction angle
K
0
lateral pressure coecient
N number of standard penetration test (SPT) value
c cohesion
q
u
unconned compression strength
OCR over-consolidation ratio
A rectangular cross-sectional area of lining
I bending moment of inertia of lining
k
W
rotational stiness of lining joint
k
n
normal stiness of lining joint
k
s
tangential stiness of lining joint
K
n
normal stiness of the contact element
K
s
tangential stiness of the contact element
f yield criterion value of the contact element
c
j
cohesion of contact element
j
j
internal friction angle of the contact element
s
n
normal stress of the contact element
t
s
shear stress of the contact element
e
v
volumetric strain
P
a
atmospheric pressure
P
g
grouting pressure
t
0
thickness of shield tail void
q
u
compressive strength
t thickness of contact element
b; b
1
; b
2
grout hole angle
P
1
grouting pressure at y b
P
2
grouting pressure at y p b
Symbols in Appendix A
F
i
nodal forces of nodal i; F
i
N
i
Q
i
M
i
T
N
i
; Q
i
; M
i
hoop force, shearing force and bending moment of nodal i
d
i
nodal displacements of nodal i; d
i
u
i
v
i
W
i
T
u
i
; v
i
; W
i
displacement components at the node i along the local co-ordinate directions
K local stiness matrix of the beam element and joint element
[B] correlative matrix between the two nodal forces of the beam element
R radius of the curved beam
b central angle of the curved beam
K
ii
block matrix of stiness matrix
d
i
k
element of the exibility matrix
E elastic modulus of the curved beam
A cross-sectional area of the curved beam
I moment of inertia of the curved beam
K
G
global stiness matrix
T transformation matrix between the local co-ordinate system and the global co-
ordinate system
T
T
transpose of the matrix T
s direction of the bisecting angle between the two beams with a positive direction
inward to opening
n direction perpendicular to s with a positive direction as counterclockwise
Du relative normal displacement of the joint along the n direction
Dv relative shearing displacement along the s direction
DW relative rotational angular displacement
F vector of joint nodal forces of hoop force, shearing force and bending moment,
F N Q M
T
Dd vector of joint relative displacements in normal, shearing and rotational direction,
Dd Du Dv DW
T
K
J
stiness matrix of the joint element in the local co-ordinates
K
G
stiness matrix of the joint element in the global co-ordinates x; z
g intersection angle between the opposite direction of local co-ordinate s and the
direction of global co-ordinate x (Figure A2)
DW relative rotation angle
k
W
1
constant that can be determined from the bending test for the segment joint
k
W
2
constant that can be determined from the bending test for the segment joint
l constant that can be determined from the bending test for the segment joint
Symbols in Appendix B
P
0
overload
R
0
external radius of shield lining
R
c
radius of middle line of shield lining
g unit weight of lining
P
e1
; P
w1
vertical earth pressure and water pressure, respectively, acted on the up side of
shield lining, respectively
q
e1
; q
w1
lateral earth pressure and water pressure at the top of shield lining act on both
sides of the shield lining, respectively
q
e2
; q
w2
lateral earth pressure and water pressure at the bottom of shield lining act on both
sides of the shield lining, respectively
P
e2
; P
w2
vertical earth pressure and water pressure, respectively, acted on the bottom side
of shield lining, respectively
P
g
vertical resistance of lining weight acted on the bottom side of shield lining
D external diameter of segment
h
0
eective overburden thickness
c cohesion of soil layer
f internal friction angle of soil layer
g average unit weight of soil layer
K
0
lateral pressure coecient
H overburden thickness
q
k
earth resistance
k soil resistance coecient
d deformation at the horizontal quadrant point of shield lining
B width of segment
h thickness of segment
E elastic modulus of segment
I bending moment of inertia of segment
H
w
water head at the top of lining
g
w
unit weight of water
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Mr. Junichi Nagaya in Geo Research Institute, Osaka Soil Test Laboratory,
Osaka, Japan for his kind assistance during this investigation. The work presented in this paper is
supported by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong SAR Government and the Hong Kong Jockey
Club Charities Trust. The authors would also like to thank the three reviewers and Editor, Professor Stein
Sture, for their invaluable comments that have enhanced the paper presentation.
REFERENCES
1. Hashimoto T, Nagaya J, Konda T. Geotechnical aspects of ground movement during shield tunneling in Japan.
One-day Seminar Geotechnical Aspect of Underground Structure, vol. 1/III6/III. Indonesia, Jakarta. Himpunan
Ahliteknik Tanah: Indonesia, 1996 (Hatti).
2. Peck RB. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Mexico, State of the Art Volume, 1969; 225290.
3. Clough GW, Schmidt B. Design and Performance of Excavations and Tunnels in Soft Clay. Soft Clay Engineering.
Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1981; 569634.
4. Rowe RK, Lo KY, Kack GJ. A method of estimating surface settlement above tunnels constructed in soft ground.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1983; 20(8):1122.
5. Schmidt B. Tunneling in soft ground in the United States}National report. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Fujita K,
Kusakabe O (eds), New Delhi, India. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995; 119122.
6. Wang JY. Tunneling and technological progress in tunneling in China. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Tunnels and Underground Structures, Tunnels and Underground Structures, Zhao J, Shirlaw JN,
Krishnan R (eds), Singapore. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 97106.
7. Zhu HH, Yang LD, Chen QJ. Two kinds of design model for joint of segment and lining in shield tunnel.
Engineering Mechanics 1994; (Suppl.):395399 (in Chinese).
8. Hudoba I. Contribution to static analysis of load-bearing concrete tunnel lining built by shield-driven technology.
Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 1997; 12(1):5558.
9. Lee KM, Ge XW. The equivalence of a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining to a continuous ring structure. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 2001; 38(3):461476.
10. Koyama Y, Kishio T, Kobayashi T. Design of linings for shield driven tunnels}a survey on Japanese shield
tunneling. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, Fujita K, Kusakabe O (eds), New Delhi, India. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995;
359366.
11. Kurihara K. Report on current shield tunneling methods in Japan. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Fujita K, Kusakabe O (eds),
New Delhi, India. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995; 111114.
12. Zhu HH, Ding WQ. The analysis of the segment internal forces in the construction process of shield tunnel. Recent
Development of Theory and Practice in Geotechnology, ChinaJapan Joint Symposium, October 2930, 1997; 257266.
13. Bernat S, Cambou B. Soilstructure interaction in shield tunneling in soft soil. Computers and Geotechnics 1998;
22(3/4):221242.
14. Oreste PP, Peila D, Poma A. Numerical study of low depth tunnel behaviour. In Proceedings of the World Tunnel
Congress99, Challenges for the 21st Century, Alten T et al. (eds), Oslo, Norway. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1999;
155162.
15. Soliman E, Duddeck H, Ahrens H. Eects of development of shotcrete stiness on stresses and displacements
of single and double tunnels. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Tunneling and Ground
Conditions, Tunneling and Ground Conditions, Abdel Salam ME (ed.), Cairo, Egypt. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam,
1994; 549556.
16. Swoboda G, Abu-krisha A. Three-dimensional numerical modeling for TBM tunneling in consolidated clay.
Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 1999; 14(3):327333.
17. Dias D, Kastner R, Maghazi M. Three reducing settlement caused by shield dimensional simulation of slurry shield
tunneling. In Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground}Is}Tokyo99, Kusakabe O, Fujita
K, Miyazaki Y (eds), Tokyo, Japan. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 351356.
18. Zhou XJ, Gao B, Hu S, Li DC. Three dimensional nite element analysis on construction process of large span
tunnel of Guangzhou Metro. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tunnels and Underground Structures,
Tunnels and Underground Structures, Zhao J, Shirlaw JN, Krishnan R (eds), Singapore. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam,
2000; 335342.
19. Negro Jr AN. Design of shallow tunnels in soft ground. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta: Edmonton, 1988.
20. Katano S. Behavior of cohesive soil ground during shield tunneling. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Fujita K, Kusakabe O (eds),
New Delhi, India. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995; 269272.
21. Benmebarek S, Kastner R, Ollier C. Reducing settlement caused by shield tunneling in alluvial soils. In Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground}Is}Tokyo99, Kusakabe O, Fujita K, Miyazaki Y (eds),
Tokyo, Japan. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 203208.
22. Negro A, de Queiroz PIB. Prediction and performance: a review of numerical analysis for tunnels. In Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground}Is}Tokyo99, Kusakabe O, Fujita K, Miyazaki Y (eds),
Tokyo, Japan. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 409418.
23. Lee KM, Ji HW, Shen CK, Liu JH, Bai TH. A case study of ground control mechanisms of EPB shield tunneling in
soft clay. In Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground}Is}Tokyo99, Kusakabe O, Fujita
K, Miyazaki Y (eds), Tokyo, Japan. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 251256.
24. Mair RJ. Geotechnical aspects of design criteria for bored tunneling in soft ground. In Proceedings of the World
Tunnel Congress98 on Tunnels and Metropolises, Tunnels and Metropolises, Negro Jr A, Ferreira AA (eds), Brazil.
A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1998; 183199.
25. Nomoto T, Mori H, Matsumoto M. Overview on ground movements during shield tunneling}a survey on Japanese
shield tunneling. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Fujita K, Kusakabe O (eds), New Delhi, India. A.A. Balkema:
Rotterdam, 1995; 345351.
26. Hashimoto T, Hayakawa K, Mizuhara K, Konda T. Investigation on successive settlement due to shield tunneling.
In Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground}Is}Tokyo99, Kusakabe O, Fujita K,
Miyazaki Y (eds), Tokyo, Japan. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 233238.
27. Japanese Research Society of Construction Maintenance Technique (Shield Branch). The in-situ measuring results
of the soil pressure etc. on the segment of the Osaka No. 7 subway line from Morinonomiya to Osaka Business Park.
The Sixth Conference of Shield Branch SC-6-1, 1995 (in Japanese).
28. Zheng YR, Dong YF, Xu ZY et al. The design instruction for rock bolt and shotcrete of underground structure. China
Railway Press: Beijing, China 1988 (in Chinese).
29. Nakajima S. New technology of shield tunnel (8). III. design and construction section. Tunnel and Underground
1991; 22(1):6978 (in Japanese).
30. van Empel WHNC, de Waal RGA, van der Veen C. Segmental tunnel lining behavior in axial direction. In
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground}Is}Tokyo99, Kusakabe O, Fujita K, Miyazaki
Y (eds), Tokyo, Japan. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, 2000; 357362.
31. Ding WQ, Yang LD, Zhu HH. Simulation of the material behavior in shield tunnel construction. Journal of Tongji
University 1999; 27(4):297302 (in Chinese).
32. Zhu HH, Tao LB. Study on two beamspring models for the numerical analysis of segments in shield tunnel. Rock
and Soil Mechanics, 1998; 18(2):2632 (in Chinese).

Analysis of Shield Tunnel

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis of Shield Tunnel

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2004; 28:5791 (DOI: 10.1002/nag.327)

Calculate newly added and stress releasing nodal forces at

Figure 8. Grout pressure models.

Figure A1. Nodal forces and displacements of curved beam model.

4 Vertical earth pressure acted on the up side

Вам также может понравиться