Concrete linings for shield driven The city of Keulen thinks that a wall of the building pit

failed. Buildings dropped in the building pit. One of the

tunnels constructors is the same as in Amsterdam.

CT3150

Dr.ir. C.B.M. Blom

Delft University of Technology
Public Works of Rotterdam

Hangzhou China, 15 nov. 2008 100x50m, 8 lanes road, river, 3-23 killed

.. more than half a month

ago, cracks have
appeared on the road.
“I will never do this job (subway
construction) in my life again—
“A BANG was heard shortly after some one crying ‘run! The steel bars are even if I were to be a beggar.”
falling!”’, he described, “and soon the tunnel started to collapse".
 Content part 3/4
Content
• part 1: introduction tunneling • Part 3 • Part 4
– Derivation model – Theory versus reality
• part 2: loading / shaft construction
– Example calculation

• part 3: structural model

• part 4: example calculation
/theory vs. reality

Definitions Bolt pocket

shield

Packing
• Principe jacks
onderdelen TBM Material
Handle hole

Dowel
lining
Cutter wheel
Longitudinal
joint Lateral joint

segments grout layer

Segment

Soil / ground water Ring

 Duddeck design diagram
,
mF MF=γHR2mF
0.14
H/R=∞
Radial Fradial 0.12 MF
σradial
εradial 8 H
Ftangential 0.10
tangential uradial σtangential
εtangential 4
0.08
utangential

0.06
Mtangential 0.04

0.02
Maxial
Axial
α
Faxial
σaxial 0
εaxial 0.1 1 10 100 1000
12.E .R3
Es 90 α= s 3
kr = Ec.bd
.
2R

Loading definition Visualisation radial and

σv tangential load
σr
H σh
0 0
σt 347 13 347 13

= 321
334 26

39 321
334 26

39

ϕ R
309 51 309 51

296 64 296 64

283 77 283 77

Ec,R,b,d σr = cos2(ϕ) σv+sin2(ϕ) σh

270 90 270 90

σt = {σv - σh} sin(ϕ) cos(ϕ) 257 103 257 103

244 116 244 116

231 129 231 129

If included: full bond - else tangential slip! 219 141 219 141

206 154 206 154

193 167 193 167
180 180
 σini
Soil reaction
σini
Homogenous ring in soil
σini
• Loading definition
u
• Uniform compression
σini – without soil
σini – embedded in soil
u • Ovalisation loading
σreact.
– without soil
= k.u
σini – embedded in soil
σtot = σini + σreact σtot = σini+ k.u
Resulting soil pressure = compression!

Loading definition
σ 0i = (σ top + σ side )/2 σ 2i = (σ top − σ side )/2
Fr = σr r.dϕ
σr,top
Hoop force Nl: ketelformule
σr
σrad
r.dϕ Fv,r = cos(ϕ).Fr
σr,side σr,side ϕ
r
= +

N0 N0 Fv,r = cos(ϕ). σrr.dϕ

σ0 = uniform loading σ2= ovalisation loading

Req: equilibrium of vertical forces
90
2N 0 = ∫F
−90
v ,r
dϕ
90
N, u0 M, u2 2 N 0 = σ r r ∫ cos ϕ .dϕ
−90

2 N 0 = σ r r [sin ϕ ]−90 = σ r r[1 + 1] ⇒ N 0 = σ r r [N/unit width]

90
Assume tangential slip: no tangential load components
Uniform compression N0
Uniform compression
u0
EA
r
r r r
• Without soil
N0 N0 N0 N0 – Normal force: N 0 = σ 0 rb N0 N0
N σ
N0 σ= 0 σ = Eε ⇒ ε =
A E
u0
– Compression:
N
ε= 0 σ r2
σ r2 Nr r
EA

u = εr
} u0 =
Nr
= 0
Ec A Ecd
u0 = = 0
Ec A Ecd
N0 N0

Uniform compression • α0=reduction factor for uniform soil support

• Embedded in soil continuum
σ 0 = σ 0,i (1 − α 0 )
– Soil is supporting the lining E u Eu
σ0,i σ 0 = σ 0, i − s 0 ⇔ σ 0 = σ 0,i (1 − s 0 )
σr=ksu0 ks =
Es r σ 0,i r
r
E s u0 σ
α0 = with u 0 = E d 0, i E
u0 σ 0,i r c
+ s
r2 r
σ 0 = σ 0 ,i − σ r
1
E u α0 =
σ 0 = σ 0, i − s 0 (σ 0,i −
E s u0 2 E cd
+1
r 2 )r σ 0, i
Nr σ r u0 = r ⇔ u0 = Es r
u0 = = 0 Ec d Ecd E s
E c A Ecd +
r2 r
A part of the initial loading is compensated by the soil support
(α0). The remaining part causes internal forces in the ring
Example compression Ovalisation loading
Ec=40000MPa Deformation Tangential bending moments
d=400mm
r=4525mm
ϕ
Es=38MPa
1
α0 = = 0.01 = 1%
E cd
+1
Es r 1% of the initial compressive loading
is reduced by the soil reaction
4 r4 1
σ 0 ≈ σ 0,i u2 (ϕ ) = σ 2 cos(2ϕ ) M ϕ = σ 2 r 2b cos(2ϕ )
3 Ec d 3 3

• Embedded in soil -û2 • α2=reduction factor for ovalisation soil support

ϕ
– top: û2
σ 2 = σ 2i (1 − α 2 )
– bottom: û2 u2 (ϕ ) =
4 r4
σ 2 cos(2ϕ )
3 Ec d 3 1
– both sides: -û2 ∧
4 r4
α2 = = 0.65 = 65%
u2 = σ2 3E c d 3
3 Ec d 3 +1
4 Es r 3
σ 2i = (σ top − σ side )/2 65% of the initial ovalisation loading is
reduced by the soil reaction. 35% of
Defined only at top and side: where û2 is ‘known’.
Es ∧ Es ∧ Ec=40000MPa the initial loading causes the internal
σ 2,soil = u2 σ 2 = σ 2i − σ 2,soil σ 2 = σ 2,i − u2 forces in the ring.
r r d=400mm
∧ 4
4 r
u2 = σ2 r=4525mm
3 Ec d 3
∧ σ 2,i σ 0, i If αi is known, the ring can be analysed
u2 =
3Ec d 3 Es
4r 4
+
r
( u0 =
Ecd E s
r2
+
r
) Es=38MPa without further consideration of soil.
Ovalisation loading
Deformation Tangential bending moments
Recipe
• Calculate αi
ϕ • Reduce σi with (1- αi)
• Analyse the ring without further
consideration of the soil
– N, M, u0, 2
• Check with lining capacity and other
4 r4 1 requirements
u2 (ϕ ) = σ 2 cos(2ϕ ) M ϕ = σ 2 r 2b cos(2ϕ )
3 Ec d 3 3
σ 2 = σ 2i (1 − α 2 )

,
mF MF=γHR2mF
Comparison for full slip 0.14
H/R=∞
0.14 0.12 MF

M = γ ' HR 2 m
8 H
H/R=4 0.10
0.12
H/R=6 4
0.08
0.1 H/R=8
Analytical 0.06
m 0.08
0.04
0.06
0.02
Conclusion: full
0.04 0 α
bond increases
0.1 1 10 100 1000 Mmax
0.02 12.E .R3
90 α= s 3
Ec.bd
.
Es R 3 Es
0 12 K0=0.5, ν = 0.3, k r =
0.1 1 10 100 1000 Ec bd 3 2R
Full bond
 Bolt pocket
Influence of longitudinal joints
• Bending stiffness of the ring reduces
Packing
• Ring is not a homogeneous ring
Material
Handle hole

Dowel

Segment
Longitudinal
joint Lateral joint
Longitudinal joint

Joint Segment Reduced contact

influence?
Ring

1
0.9
Influence of couplings
0.8 5 6 7 89
0.7
Reduction factor ζ

10
0.6
0.5 20
Number of segments
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 lt2 r 10 15 20

d3
lt2 r 1702 * 4525 EI in calculation with homogeneous
= = 2.04
d3 4003 ring is 64% of full homogeneous Ring 1 Ring 2
lt 7 segments value to involve influence of the
ζ is 0.64 longitudinal joints. Adjoining rings in masonry layout. The position of the
d (e.g. Ec=0.64*40000MPa) longitudinal joints is rotated half a segment each following ring.
This causes deformation differences between the rings
 σ2 σ2
Ring 2
Ring 2
Consequences for internal forces
Ring 1 Ring 1

TBM
Coupling force
force
Ring 1
Ring 2

Mtg
Mtg

Uncoupled ring Coupled ring

The coupling forces disturb the tangential bending moments.

However, the average of the tangential bending moments for
ring 1 and 2 is the solution of the uncoupled ring

mF MF=γHR2mF
0.14 ,
0.12
H/R=∞

8
MF Calculation example
H
0.10 surface
Maaiveld
4
0.08 Calculation data:
0.06 Depth tunnel : H = 16 m
Diameter tunnel : D = 8 m
0.04
Segmental thickness estimation:
Es R 3
α=
0.02 1
d = /20 D
0 α
X-axis: 1
d = /20 * 8.00 : d = 0.40 m
0.1 1 10 100 1000
12.E.R3
EI d=0.40 m
90 α= s 3
Ec.bd
. Soil: homogeneous sands.
• Es > then α > then M< Stiffness : E s = 75000 kN/m2
Saturated mass : γ sat = 18 kN/m 3
• EI > then α < then M > Concrete : C30/37
• Conclusion: the stiffer the lining compared Longitudinal joint contact length lt
to the soil, the higher the tangential bending : 170 mm sand
zandlaag
moment.
8.00 m
• Structural stiffness attracts forces!
Approach
Reinforcement and checks
• Estimate lining thickness d (8/20 = 0.4 m)
• Determine with graph: Mmax • Reinforcement by:
• Determine hoop force N – Tangential forces (ring forces)
• Determine reinforcement – Axial forces (longitudinal forces)
• Check shear capacity
• split reinforcement longitudinal joints
• Size of jack shoes
• split reinforcement axial direction

,
mF MF=γHR2mF
Tangential
Location reinforcement: Tange 0.14

0.12
H/R=∞
MF bending moments
8 H
0.10
4
0.08 Es=75000 kN/m2
0.06
R=4 m
0.04
Bending reinforcement C30/37
0.02

0 α b=1m
0.1 1 10 100 1000
12.E .R3
(EC2 art. 3.1.3):
90 α= s 3 d = 0.4 m (D/20)
Ec.bd
.

 f +8
0.3

Ecm = 22  ck 2
 *1000[ N / mm ]
 10 
 30 + 8 
0.3

Ecm = 22   *1000 = 32800 MPa = 33.10 kN / m

6 2

 10 
split reinforcement longitudinal joint
Cracks reduce to 30%-50%
Ecracked = 0.5 Ecm
 ,
mF MF=γHR2mF
1 0.14 Tangential
0.9 H/R=∞
Longitudinal
5
joints?
7 89
0.8 0.12 MF bending moments
6 8 H
0.7 0.10
Reduction factor ζ

10
0.6 4
20 0.08
0.5
Number of segments 0.06
0.4
0.3
0.04
0.2
0.1 0.02
0 0 α
0.1 1 10 100 1000
0 5 lt2 r 10 15 20
12.E .R3
90 α= s 3
d3 Ec.bd
.

lt2 R 170 2 * 4000 Es R 3 Es R 3 75000 * 43

α= = = = 90[/ m]
= = 1.8 EI 1 3 1
d3 4003 E bd 10.106 * *1* 0.43
7 segments 12 12
ζ = 0.6
lt
H 16 σ v' = H (γ sat − γ wat ) = 16(18 − 10) = 128kN / m 2
= =4
d R 4
E = ζ * 0.5 Ecm = 0.6 * 0.5*33.106 ≈ 10.106 kN / m 2 M F = σ v' R 2 mF = 128 * 4 2 * 0.02 = 41kNm / m1

Tangential hoop Determine locations reinforcement:

force (normal force) Tan
N = 870 kN/m1

M = 41 kNm/m1

In the serviceability state (γ = 1) the first order eccentricity is:

M 44
Es R 75000 * 4 e= = = 0.05m
α= = ≈ 0. 1 N 870
EA 10.10 6 *1* 0.4
EC2, art 6.1 requires that this eccentricity exceeds at least:
N F = σ v' RnF + σ w R = 128 * 4 * 0.45 + (16 *10) * 4 = 870kN / m1
e ≥ emin
Sometimes a normative requirement:
75% by water h h 
The tunnel must be able to resist flooding. So, also emin = </ 20 mm ⇒  = 13mm  ⇒ emin = 20mm OK
water pressure inside the tunnel: N is very low 30  30 
 Check Check inundation
• Eccentricity e = M/N = 0.05 m • N = 0, because tunnel is flooded
M γM 1.5 * 41.10 6
• σ tens = W = 1 2 = 1 = 2.3 N / mm 2
d
• Neutral zone: 1/6 d = 0.066 m.
– no tensile stress! Apparently no reinforcement required. bd 1000.400 2
6 6
• From EC2 Table 3.1 it is understood that the C30/37
• Apply minimal reinforcement (EC2, 9.2.1.1) bending strength fctm is 2.9 N/mm2. It is concluded that
(Ø12-200 or Ø10-200, about 530 mm2 ../m). even when the tangential normal force is absent, the
C30/37 tensile strength is not exceeded.

• Apply minimal reinforcement (EC2, 9.2.1.1)

(Ø12-200 or Ø10-200 , about 530 mm2 ../m).

Shear force check (by approximation) • However, EC2 art 6.2.4, (4)
M d 1.5 * 41.10 6
– Minimum shear reinforcement required, since
VEd = = = 60kN VEd ≤ VRd ,c
1
R 1000 brittle collapse is catastrophic.
4
• art. 9.2.2., see example in syllabus
1/4R
VRd ,c = τ Rd ,c bd = = kN
450 mm
τ Rd ,c = cRd , c k 3 100 ρl f ck + k1σ cp
Material and geomentry part 260 mm

External compression part

N N σ R
σ cp = compressive = water = w
Required: VEd ≤ VRd ,c Ac Ac Ac
60 << 238 → OK k1 = 0.15 Segment width

In common: Segment length

direction
Circular tunnels: no shear problems.
 Split reinforcement longitudinal joints Check compressive stress
F/2 • EC2, art 6.7: compressive stress, required: f Ed ≤ f Rdu ok
F/2
d/4-lt/4 Ac1 Ac0 = load introduction area
Nspl
f Rdu = f cd Ac0 = area larger than Ac0 but
870 kN Ac 0
d same shape, where stresses will
lt

be reduced
• Ac0 = segm. width * lt and Ac1 = Ac0
• Ac1 = Ac0 and fRdu = fcd = 20 Mpa
d/2
l=d
• safety factor γ = 1.5 is:
(EC2, art. 6.5.3, eq 6.58)
d lt γ .F  l  1.5 * 870.103  170  γF 1.5*870.103
N spl 4 − 4
f Ed = = = 7.7 N / mm 2
1 − t F  lt  1 − N spl 
= N spl 4  spl d  1 −  4 As , spl = 400 
⇒ N = Ab 1000 *170
AFs , spl = d = 4 = d  f s = 431mm
2
f Ed ≤ f Rdu ⇒ 7.7 ≤ 20 ⇒ ok
2 2f s fs 435

Locations reinforcement: Ax. Check jack forces TBM

Ps [kN]

140000 β=1100
150
aantal

120000
100

100000 β=700
50

80000
β 1500
0
0 500 1000
Jack split reinforcement 60000
2
40000

20000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ds [m]
Includes safety factor of 2
split reinforcement
 Size jack shoe Size jack shoe
• 14 jacks:
pair of jacks
– each jack 60000/14 = 4280kN
jack shoe ab = 150 mm
– allowable stress fR,du = 36 N/mm2 (see book)
d
– F jack 4280.103
al = 1 m fbd = = 2
= 29 N / mm ⇒ f bd ≤ f Rdu ⇒ ok
b=d Ashoe 1000*150
l

segment

2πr/14
A-A
– shoe size: 150*1000mm2 OK
A-A Assume: 150 * 1000 mm2

Edge splitting force Concrete linings for shield driven

pair of jacks tunnels
F/2

T1
Tensile force in CT3150
segment between jacks segment

Dr.ir. C.B.M. Blom

T1
Delft University of Technology
packing Public Works of Rotterdam
material
balancing force F/2

Rule of thumb: T1=0.09Fp=385kN: As=885mm2

 Vertical soil stress at tunnel centre

Soil stresses Depth 20 m, γsw = 20 kN/m3, σv, as = 22*20 = 440 kN/m2

hd γsd 6.0 σv = const

hd* γsw
5.0 σtop,rad
γw 4.0
hs γsw 3.0

Distance to centre of ring [m]

hw
2.0
σv=hd* γsw+hw*γsw
1.0
ϕ σw=hw*γw
σside
σh=(σv-σw)*K0+σw 0.0
-1.00.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500
h
-2.0
water pressure
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
Practical approach: -6.0
Pressure [MPa]
- σv = everywhere equal to σv at tunnel centre Radial effective soil pressure Radial soil pressure
Water pressure Radial soil pressure - floating omitted

Grouting Structural safety

Special topics

• Safety aspects. • Increasing lining thickness:

• Practical lining thickness.
• Model results – measurements. – Increasing bending moments.
– Conclusion: Increasing thickness is bad?
• Effects of grout, around the tunnel.
• Soil plasticity.
 mF , MF=γHR2mF
0.14
H/R=∞
Increasing Lining thickness d
0.12 MF thickness
8 H
0.10
4
• Axial TBM forces
0.08
• Uncertainty of curing grout, soil support
0.06

0.04
• …….
It seems:
0.02 • Increase d • Result: standard segmental thickness:
Diameter
• Decrease a d=
0 α 20
0.1 1 10 100 1000 • Increase M
12.E.R3 Project Internal diameter Segmental Ratio
90 α= s 3 (Di [mm]) thickness d/Di
Ec.bd
.
(d [mm])
SHT 7600 350 1 / 21.7
BRT 8650 400 1 / 21.6
Concl: The increase of bending moments by load is steeper than SRT 8650 400 1 / 21.6
the increase of the moment capacity: structural safety decreases! WST 10100 450 1 / 22.4
GHT 13300 600 1 / 22.2

Models
Dutch bored tunnels
Analytical
d = D/20 Empirical
800
Observational
Segmental thickness [mm]

700
600 Frame analyses
500 H
FEM
400
300 D
200
100
0
General conclusion:
0 5000 10000 15000
Calculated forces differ from reality.
Diameter [mm]
Settlements

Measured
Predicted

Goal of grouting
• Embed and support the lining
• Compensation for settlements
– Observation:
Settlements always occur.
Compensation of settlements by high
pressure grouting is limited effective.
 Grout

Rheopectic time dependent

Lining models
Grout is ‘missing link’ Settlement models Isochoric no deformation due to
isostatic pressure

Visco-plastic no deformation until

critical shear stress
is exceeded

Effect:
–No hydrostatical gradient
–Non linear behaviour
–Plasticity in the soil

Result of complex model:

– Similar pressure as measured.
– Simila deformation of the tunnel.
– Steeper settlements as observed.

Modelling of grout behaviour = very complex!

 General safety factors General safety factors
7 Gamma Mu
standard (coupled
6
Curing ring)
grouting

Safety factor gamma

Lining in soil - ring model
5 Gamma Mu uplift
(coupled ring,
4 incompl grouting)
3 Gamma Mu
standard (hom ring)
2
In soil support Gamma Mu uplift
1 (hom ring, incompl
grouting)
0
Gamma Mu uplift
Lining in soil - ring model 0 200 400 600 800
(coupled ring,
Segmental thickness d [mm] compl grouting)

Groeneweg, 2007 Example of the Botlek Railway Tunnel

Different mechanisms (D = 15 m)

Regular Dead
asdweight Excess
decrease grouting
Groeneweg, 2007
 Unsupported zone

Top support failure

• Lack of weight
• Local exceed of shear stress
 Learning 2e Heinenoord
• Blow-out.
• No front support.
• Stop flow with highly absorbing gravel.
(something as used in cat toilets)
• Fast continuing drilling.

Assembling tolerances Difference between theory and reality

 Damage / cracks Complex model predicts damage
Observation
Cleaning
Drill
Inject
Verify
+ claims
+ durability
+ Different
structural
behaviour We don’t want this
+…..

Fire safety and structural resistance

• Emergency routing
– Simulations.
• Structural safety
– Fire protecting materials.
– Fire tests (TNO fire department).
 Basic principle: dividing wall
for safe area
Human consequence by fire
• Suffocation (Verstikking)
• Sight, seeing where to run away
• Radiation
• Temperature (60 gr)

Animations to test
emergency routing
Fire measures
• Dividing wall
• Fire doors
• Emergency shafts
• Communication
• Ventilation
• Safe area: stop trains!!
Consultation of
safety partners
 Fire load: temperature development Spalling is influenced by:
1200

1000

• Increase of pore pressure by evaporated water.

800
• Compression of the heated surface as a
Temperatuur (C)

10 minuten overslag
consequence of temperature gradient.
600 15 minuten overslag
HSL-curve
• Internal cracking due to the difference between
10 minutes between wagons
400 thermal expansion coefficients of concrete and
reinforcement.
200
15 minutes between wagons • Decrease of material strength.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Tijd (min)

Fire test

Insulation material
 Channel Tunnel
1996
Concrete spalling
Spalling
 Spray robot Westerscheldetunnel Spray robot

Summary

• TBMs
• Segments
• Loads
• Models
• Example calculation
• Models vs reality
• Fire safety