Effects of jack force and construction steps on the change of lining stresses in a TBM tunnel
- 268 Downloads
This study investigated the effects of construction sequence and thrust force from hydraulic jacks on the stress distribution of the tunnel lining by analyzing field data measured at a real Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) tunnel construction site. A three-dimensional Finite Element (FE) model that incorporated the major design components of a TBM tunnel lining, such as face pressure, shield, grout, and hydraulic jack, as well as the simulation of a step-by-step construction procedure was also proposed. Specifically, the ring joints between linings were modeled using anisotropic solid elements to predict the effects of the jack force on the axial stresses in the lining. The proposed FE model was verified by comparing the numerical results with field data and various analytical and empirical formulas. Through this FE method, extra analyses were conducted with various ground conditions, dimensions of tunnel, and jack forces to investigate the effects of construction stage loads on the behaviors of a TBM tunnel. From analyzing these parametric results and field data, it was concluded that soil elastic modulus has strong influence on axial stresses in lining due to jack forces, and the axial stress of linings converged to roughly 30% of the peak stress.
Keywordsshield TBM tunnel lining stress jack force ring joint finite element analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Attewell, P. B., and Woodman, J. P. (1982). “Predicting the dynamics of ground settlements and its derivatives by tunneling in soil.” Ground Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
- Luttikholt, A. (2007). Ultimate limit state analysis of a segmented tunnel lining, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Mansour, M. A. M. (1996). Three-dimensional numerical modeling of hydroshield tunneling, PhD Thesis, University of Innsbruck, Austria.Google Scholar
- Mair, R. J., Gunn, M. J., and O’Reilly, M. P. (1983). “Ground movements around shallow tunnel in soft clay.” Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 323–328.Google Scholar
- Migliazza, M., Chiorboli, M., and Giani, G. P. (2009). “Comparison of analytical method, 3D finite element model with experimental subsidence measurements resulting from the extension of the Millan underground.” Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 113–124, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Midas, I. T. (2015). Midas GTS online manual, https://kor.midasuser. com/geotech/Google Scholar
- Downloads (2015). Accessed March 2015.Google Scholar
- Oteo, C. and Moya, J. F. (1979). “Estimation of the soil parameters of Madrid in relation to the tunnel construction.” Proceedings of 7th Euro Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Brington, pp. 239–247.Google Scholar
- Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground.” Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Mexico, pp. 225–290.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, B. (1969). “Prediction of settlements due to tunneling in soil: three case histories.” Proceedings of 2nd rapid excavation tunneling conference, San Francisco, CA,pp. 801-812.Google Scholar
- Yu, H. T., Yuan, Y., Liu, X., Li, Y. W., and Ji, S. W. (2012). “Damages of the Shaohuoping road tunnel near the epcentre.” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 435–446, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.647038.Google Scholar