Shield Tunnel

STUDY ON MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR AND
DESIGN OF COMPOSITE SEGMENT

FOR SHIELD TUNNEL

October 2009

Civil and Environmental Engineering
Graduate School of Science and Engineering
WASEDA University

WENJUN ZHANG

STUDY ON MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR AND
DESIGN OF COMPOSITE SEGMENT
FOR SHIELD TUNNEL

Dissertation submitted to the faculty of
Science and Engineering of Waseda University for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering

October 2009

WENJUN ZHANG

The dissertation of Wenjun ZHANG is by
Prof. Hiroshi SEKI
Prof. Teruhiko YODA
Prof. Osamu KIYOMIYA
Prof. Atsushi KOIZUMI, Committee Chair

WASEDA University, Tokyo, JAPAN

Copyright 2009
By
WENJUN ZHANG

I
ABSTRACT

The use of underground space is not just to excavate deeply, but also to enlarge the
cross-section of tunnel and to replace the circular shape with rectangular, multi-circle or
other shape of cross-section in recent years. For these reasons, hydraulic pressure and
earth pressure acting on a tunnel lining are high and the occurred resultant forces are
very large. Therefore, tunnel lining must satisfy the required performances under severe
conditions. However, traditional tunnel linings (called segment in shield tunnel, e.g. steel
segment, concrete segment, and ductile cast iron segment) can not satisfy the required
performances, because which have disadvantages in economy, product, transportation,
and assembly. The need exists for developing new type segment as composite segment.
When designing composite segment, special considerations need to be taken for the
effects of the interface slip, the confinement effect of steel tube on the deflection of the
concrete infill, the number and arrangement of shear connectors, the contributions of
resultant forces in steel tube and concrete infill, and the deflection behavior of composite
section.
By laboratory tests of composite segments, the advantages of light weight, high
strength, superior ductility compared to traditional segments can be achieved. The slip
effect creates an additional bending moment, local bucking of steel plate, and concrete
cracking, which reduce the carrying capacity of composite segment.
The proposed FEM model and mechanical model are suitable for general analysis of
tunnel lining of composite segment under combined loads.
A comparison is made between the cross-section of RC segment and the cross-section
of Closed-composite segment. The reduction of segment thickness is obtained using
Closed-composite segment and this indicates that Closed-composite segment is suitable
for decreasing muck, construction period and the outside diameter of the shield machine.
In general, the costs of construction, risk, and maintenance will be decreased

Key Words: Composite segment; Shield tunnel; Confinement effect; Slip effect;
Nonlinear analysis; limit state design method

III
ACKNOWLEDGES

I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Atsushi Koizumi for his support,
encouragement, guidance, and advice.
Many thanks are also due the staff at structural laboratory for their help with my tests
and measurements.
All the students at the Koizumi laboratory are appreciated for being such good
colleagues. Special thanks, to the master-students for laughter and highly informal
discussion. Thanks to Takuya Omura for your beautiful pictures. Thanks to Tetsutaro
Suzuki at Maeda Corporation for ordering the experimental data. Thanks to Takeshi
Suzuki for making the Moleman model.
Further, gratefully thank the financial support provided for this study by Japan Iron
and Steel Federation (JISF), and experimental data provided for DRC segment and
SSPC segment by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT),
Nippon Civic Consulting Engineers Co., Ltd (NCC), and Japan Steel Segment
Association (JSSA). Special thanks, to Masami Shirato at MLIT and Kunihiko Takimoto
at Kajima Corporation for help.
Finally, Mom, Wife, Son, and my brothers, I would like to thank you very much for
always supporting and being there for me.

V
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... V
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS III
CONTENTS ..V
LIST of FIGURES .. IX
LIST of TABLES .. XIII
NOTATION . XVII

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preface ...1
1.2 Purpose and scope of this study .......4
1.3 Layout of this dissertation .........6
1.4 References ..7

Chapter 2. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
2.1 Steel component ...9
2.2 Concrete component ............11
2.2.1 Concrete properties 12
2.2.2 Yield and failure criterion for concrete ..........21
2.3 Shear connectors .....22
2.3.1 Behavior of shear Stud .24
2.3.2 Behavior of rib connector ............28
2.4 References ......29

Chapter 3. TEST PROGRAM OF CLOSED-COMPOSITE SEGMENT
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Test program .35
3.2.1 Test specimens ...35
3.2.2 Test setup ...37
VI
3.3 Test results and discussion ........43
3.3.1 Load-deflection response 44
3.3.2 Strain distribution ...........49
3.3.3 Sensitivity study ............53
3.3.4 Failure modes ............54
3.4 Summary ....55
3.5 References ..56

Chapter 4. FEM ANALYSIS OF CLOSED-COMPOSITE SEGMENT
4.1 Introduction ....57
4.2 Finite element model ..57
4.2.1 Structure model 57
4.2.2 Material model .....59
4.3 Analysis method .......62
4.3.1 Contact analysis .63
4.3.2 Buckling analysis .............67
4.4 Results of analysis and discussion ......68
4.4.1 Load-deflection response .....69
4.4.2 Strain distribution ............75
4.4.3 Failure modes ..........76
4.4.4 Contact status ..........79
4.4.5 Stress distribution ..........80
4.5 Discussion of contact analysis ......81
4.6 Summary ...82
4.7 References ...82

Chapter 5. A MECHANICAL MODEL OF CLOSED COMPOSITE
SEGMENT
5.1 Introduction ...83
5.2 Structural modeling ...84
5.2.1 Basic assumptions .84
VII
5.2.2 Equilibrium and compatibility conditions ......85
5.3 Material model ...93
5.3.1 Concrete .........93
5.3.2 Steel ......96
5.3.3 Reinforcement embedded in concrete ..........96
5.3.4 Shear stud connector ........98
5.4 Cross sectional analysis .........98
5.5 Results and discussion of the proposed method .........105
5.7 Summary ...108
5.8 References .......109

Chapter 6. VERIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FEM AND
MECHANICAL MODELS
6.1 Introduction ..111
6.2 SSPC segment ..111
6.2.1 Test specimens 111
6.2.2 Test setup .....113
6.2.3 Test results and discussion .....114
6.2.4 FEM results and discussion .....117
6.3 DRC segment ..123
6.3.1 Test specimens 123
6.3.2 Test setup .....128
6.3.3 Test results and discussion .....133
6.3.4 FEM results and discussion .....138
6.4 Results and discussion of the mechanical model .........147
6.5 Summary ...151

Chapter 7. DESIGN OF COMPOSITE SEGMENT
7.1 Introduction 153
7.2 Calculation of loads ...155
VIII
7.2.1 Earth pressure and water pressure ..158
7.2.2 Self weight ..........................163
7.2.3 Surcharge ..........................163
7.3 Structural calculation ...............163
7.3.1 Elastic equation method 165
7.3.2 Calculation of shell-spring model ......167
7.4 Check of safety of segmental lining ......171
7.4.1 Allowable stress design method ..171
7.4.2 Limit state design method 176
7.5 Design example .....184
7.5.1 Dimensions of segment . ..184
7.5.2 Ground Conditions ...184
7.5.3 Load Conditions ...185
7.5.4 Calculation of member forces .186
7.5.5 Designing segmental lining and checking safety 192
7.6 Summary 199

Chapter 8. CONCLUSIONS
Abstract in Japanese
List of papers
IX
List of Figures

Fig.1.1 Schematic and photo of composite segments.....1
Fig.2.1 Stress-Strain curve of the structural steel.............9
Fig.2.2 Von Mises' yield criterion.............11
Fig.2.3 Stress-strain curves for unconfined concrete...........14
Fig.2.4 CFST member..................18
Fig.2.5 Buyukozturk yield and failure envelopes for concrete............22
Fig.2.6 Shear connectors..23
Fig.2.7 Load-slip curves for shear studs..........26
Fig.3.1 Manufacturing process of Closed-composite segment.....35
Fig.3.2 Detail of Closed-composite segment specimens.36
Fig.3.3 Biaxial Structure Test Machine and measuring instruments.............38
Fig.3.4 Test setup for Closed-composite segment specimens......39
Fig.3.5 The arrangement of displacement transducers39
Fig.3.6 The strain gauges arrangement of Closed-composite segment specimens42
Fig.3.7 The method for determining the yield load from load-deformation curves43
Fig.3.8 Load-deflection curves at midspan......48
Fig.3.9 Measured strain distribution on the surfaces of steel plates along the midspan
sect i on. . . . . . 50
Fig.3.10 Measured strain distribution along the height of main girder and mortar
surfaces....51
Fig.3.11 Load-relative slip strain on interface between top skin plate and mortar infill..52
Fig.3.12 Load-strain curves on skin plates and the edge of main girders............52
Fig.3.13 Effects of the changing thicknesses of steel tube on ultimate carrying
capacity.........53
Fig.3.14 Failure modes of the Closed-composite segment specimens..54
Fig.4.1 Finite element model of Closed-composite segment.....58
Fig.4.2 Von Mises yield surface in the principal stress space...59
Fig.4.3 Concrete failure surface in the principal stress space...59
Fig.4.4 Stress-strain relation for unconfined concrete under uniaxial compression.....61
X
Fig.4.5 MSC.Marc Continuous friction model through Eq. (4.10)........64
Fig.4.6 Stick-Slip friction procedure in MSC.Marc...66
Fig.4.7 Load-deflection curves for Case15 Closed-segment specimen from different
analyses.......69
Fig.4.8 Load-deflection curves for tested Closed-segment specimens at midspan......72
Fig.4.9 Relative slip distribution for Closed-segment specimens without shear studs of
Case10......74
Fig.4.10 Relative slip distribution for Closed-segment specimens with shear studs of
Case14......75
Fig.4.11 Load-relative slip relationship for Closed-segment specimens with shear
studs......75
Fig.4.12 Strain distribution for main girder of Closed-composite segment specimens...76
Fig.4.13 Local buckling of Closed-composite segment specimens without shear studs..77
Fig.4.14 Local buckling of Closed-composite segment specimens with shear studs...77
Fig.4.15 Concrete infill failure of Closed-composite segment specimens.78
Fig.4.16 Contact status of Closed-composite segment specimens...79
Fig.4.17 x-directional stress in skin plates of Closed-composite segment specimens...80
Fig.4.18 Effect of friction on the stiffness of Closed-composite segment specimens..81
Fig.5.1 Calculation model for the composite segment.85
Fig.5.2 Kinematic of composite segment.......88
Fig.5.3 Strain distribution of composite segment......88
Fig.5.4 Load definitions...........91
Fig.5.5 Calculation model for additional moment........99
Fig.5.6 Discretization of composite section...........100
Fig.5.7 Strain and stress distribution of composite segment........102
Fig.5.8 Bending moment-curvature curves of Closed-composite segments..........107
Fig.5.9 Load-deflection curves of Closed-composite segments at midspan..............108
Fig.6.1 Manufacturing process of SSPC segment..111
Fig.6.2 Detail of SSPC segment specimen.........112
Fig.6.3 Test setup for SSPC segment specimens....113
Fig.6.4 The arrangement of measuring instruments on SSPC segment specimens....114
XI
Fig.6.5 Load-deflection curves of SSPC segment specimens at midspan..115
Fig.6.6 Measured strain distribution along the height main girder.......116
Fig.6.7 Failure modes of SSPC segment specimens.......117
Fig.6.8 Finite element model of an SSPC segment......118
Fig.6.9 Load-deflection curves for tested SSPC segment specimens at midspan119
Fig.6.10 Load-relative slip relationship for SSPC segment specimens..119
Fig.6.11 Strain distribution for main girder of SSPC segment specimens.....120
Fig.6.12 Concrete infill failure of SSPC segment specimens.......121
Fig.6.13 Contact status of SSPC segment specimens...122
Fig.6.14 x-directional stress in steel tube of SSPC segment specimens..........123
Fig.6.15 DRC segment......123
Fig.6.16 Arrangement of the discharge channel tunnel and ground condition of 4th
section.......124
Fig.6.17 Segmental ring arrangement125
Fig.6.18 Configuration and reinforcing bar layout of A1P~A6P segments..126
Fig.6.19 Configuration and reinforcing bar layout of DRC segment specimens...127
Fig.6.20 Test setup for DRC segment specimens............................129
Fig.6.21 Testing steps.............................................................................130
Fig.6.22 The arrangement of displacement transducers on DRC segment specimens...130
Fig.6.23 The arrangement of strain gauges on DRC segment specimens..132
Fig.6.24. Load-deflection curves of DRC segment specimens at midspan......133
Fig.6.25. Measured strain distribution........135
Fig.6.26. Load-relative slip curves of DRC segment specimens..137
Fig.6.27. Failure modes under combined positive bending and axial loads138
Fig.6.28 Finite element model of a DRC segment.......139
Fig.6.29 Load-deflection curves for tested DRC segment specimens at midspan..140
Fig.6.30 Load-relative slip relationship for DRC segment specimens...141
Fig.6.31 Strain distribution for the members of DRC segment specimens...143
Fig.6.32 Concrete infill failure of DRC segment specimens...144
Fig.6.33 Contact status of DRC segment specimens.145
Fig.6.34 x-directional stress in skin plate of DRC segment specimens146
XII
Fig.6.35 Bending moment-curvature curves of composite segments.150
Fig.6.36 Load-deflection curves of composite segments at midspan.151
Fig.7.1 Flow chart of shield tunnel lining design..154
Fig.7.2 Flow chart of calculation of the loads..156
Fig.7.3 Calculation model of loosing earth pressure..158
Fig.7.4 Structural models of the segmental lining.163
Fig.7.5 Concept of the additional rate of bending rigidity.164
Fig.7.6 Stress condition of joint member....167
Fig.7.7 Modeled joint member by springs.....167
Fig.7.8 Bolt and nut....168
Fig.7.9 Stress-strain curve......181
Fig.7.10 Ground condition.....185
Fig.7.11 Structural model.....187
Fig.7.12 Schematic of joint........187
Fig.7.13 Distributions of member forces of A-Ring in circumferential direction190
Fig.7.14 Distributions of member forces of B-Ring in circumferential direction191
Fig.7.15 Contour of member forces of segmental lining assembled in a staggered
pattern.........192
Fig.7.16 Transition of ultimate limit states for RC segment.193
Fig.7.17 Section of RC segment and arrangement of main reinforcements194
Fig.7.18 Axial force-moment interaction diagram of RC segment.194
Fig.7.19 Transition of ultimate limit states for Closed-composite segment196
Fig.7.20 Resultant axial force in each element.197
Fig.7.21 Distribution of connectors in segment with distributed loads.197
Fig.7.22 Section of Closed-composite segment and arrangement of shear studs199
Fig.7.23 Axial force-moment interaction diagram of Closed-composite segment199

XIII
List of Tables

Table1.1 Conduits under national roads in the wards of Tokyo.....1
Table2.1. The parameters of unconfined concrete....13
Table2.2. Stress-Strain models for confined concrete based on Sargin et al....15
Table2.3. Stress-Strain models for confined concrete based on Kent and Park...16
Table2.4. Stress-Strain models for confined concrete based on Kent and Park...17
Table2.5 Experimental and analytical curve parameters of Candappa et al20
Table2.6 Experimental and analytical curve parameters of Attard-Setunge20
Table2.7 Experimental and analytical curve parameters of Imran-Pantazopoulou..20
Table2.8 Coefficients for static stiffness of a shear stud per Equation 2.20.....26
Table3.1 Details of Closed-segment specimens.36
Table3.2 Mechanical material properties for Closed-composite segment specimens....37
Table3.3 Experimental results of Closed-composite segment specimens.......44
Table5.6 Comparison of elastic bending capacities of composite segment specimens..105
Table5.7 Comparison of ultimate bending capacities of composite segment specimens
......106
Table6.1 Details of SSPC segment specimens.......112
Table6.2 Mechanical material properties for SSPC segment specimens.....112
Table6.3 Experimental results of SSPC segment specimens.........115
Table6.4 Details of DRC segment specimens..128
Table6.5 Mechanical material properties for DRC segment specimens........128
Table6.6 Comparison of elastic bending capacities of composite segment specimens..148
Table6.7 Comparison of ultimate bending capacities of composite segment specimens
......149
Table7.1 Earth pressure acting on the lining by Terzaghi..157
Table7.2. Coefficient ( ) of lateral earth pressure and coefficient ( k ) of ground reaction
......157
Table7.3. Examples of notation used in the guidelines (Soil condition)....160
Table7.4. Examples of notation used in the guidelines........161

XIV
Table7.5 Equations of member forces for conventional model/modified conventional
model..............165
Table7.6 Effective ratio of the bending rigidity of and additional rate of .166

Table7.7 Spring constant of soil reaction...170
Table7.8 Allowable stresses of concrete for segment (N/mm
2
).....171
Table7.9 Allowable stresses of cast-in-place reinforced concrete (N/mm
2
)......172
Table7.10 Allowable stresses of cast-in-place plain concrete (N/mm
2
)........172
Table7.11 Allowable stresses of reinforcement(N/mm
2
)....172
Table7.12 Allowable stresses of steel material and welds(N/mm
2
).173
Table7.13 Allowable buckling stresses(N/mm
2
)........173
Table7.14 Allowable stresses for local buckling of steel segment(N/mm
2
).....174
Table7.15 Allowable stresses of spheroidal graphite cast iron (N/mm
2
).......174
Table7.16 Allowable stresses for buckling of spheroidal graphite cast iron (N/mm
2
)...174
Table7.17 Allowable stresses for buckling of ductile cast iron segment (N/mm
2
).....175
Table7.18 Allowable stresses of steel casting for welded structure (N/mm
2
).......175
Table7.19 Allowable stresses of bolt (N/mm
2
)......................................................175
Table7.20 Characteristic values of the strength of concrete for segment (N/mm
2
)...176
Table7.21 Characteristic values of the strength of cast-in-place reinforced concrete
(N/mm
2
) ...................................................... ....................................177
Table7.22 Characteristic values of the strength of reinforcement (N/mm
2
)...177
Table7.23 Characteristic values of the strength of steel material and welds (N/mm
2
)...178
Table7.24 Characteristic values of steel buckling(N/mm
2
)..........................178
Table7.25 Characteristic values for local buckling of steel segment(N/mm
2
)..........179
Table7.26 Characteristic values of the strength of spheroidal graphite cast iron
(N/mm
2
)............................................................................................179
Table7.27 Characteristic values of the strength for buckling (N/mm
2
)..........179
Table7.28 Characteristic values for local buckling of ductile cast iron segment (N/mm
2
)
............................................................................................180
Table7.29 Characteristic values of steel casting for welded structure(N/mm
2
)....180
Table7.30 Characteristic values of the strength of bolt(N/mm
2
)..180
Table7.31 Elastic modulus of concrete (segment) (N/mm
2
)181
XV
Table7.32 Elastic modulus of steel, reinforcement, and spheroidal graphite cast iron
(N/mm
2
) ...........................................................................................181
Table7.33 Poissons ratio181
Table7.34 Nominal standard for material factor182
Table7.35 Nominal standard for member factor (Concrete segment)182
Table7.36 Nominal standard for member factor (Steel and cast iron segment)183
Table7.37 Nominal standard for load factor
f
..183
Table7.38 Nominal standard for structural analysis factor.183
Table7.39 Nominal standard of structure factor.....184
Table7.40 Combined load case.......185
Table7.41 Spring constant of soil reaction....187
Table7.42 Member forces of segmental lining (A-Ring)...188
Table7.43 Comparison of structural type...200

XVII
NOTATION

The following notation is used in this book. Generally, only one meaning is assigned
to each symbol, but in cases where more than one meaning is possible, then the correct
one will be evident from the context in which it is used.

A =Area; constant of material
b
A

=Area of bottom skin plate section
c
A
=Area of concrete section
cu
A

=Area of uncracked concrete section
mb
A

=Area of main girder section in tension
mt
A

=Area of main girder section in compression
t
A

=Area of top skin plate section
sh
A

=Cross-sectional area of the shank of a shear stud
B =Width of segment; constant of material; width or span of opening
C =Constant of material; ratio
D =Diameter of an equivalent circular section
D
0
=Diameter of segmental lining
hd
d

=Diameter of the head of a shear stud
sh
d =Diameter of the shank of a shear stud
c
E
=Elastic modulus of the concrete
i
E
=Initial tangent modulus
f
E
=Secant modulus of concrete measured at peak stress
s
E
=Elastic modulus of the steel
st
E
=Strain hardening modulus of steel
EA =Axial rigidity
EI =Bending rigidity
c
f
= Compressive strength of unconfined concrete
cc
f
= Compressive strength of confined concrete
t
f

=Tensile strength of unconfined concrete
XVIII
lx
f ,
ly
f
=Lateral confining pressures in the two orthogonal directions
yp
f
=Yield stress of steel plate
ud
f
=Post-buckling stress of steel plate
H =Height of channel connector
H
t
=Height of opening
sh
h
=Height of the shank of a shear stud
b
I
=Moment of inertia of the bottom skin plate section
cu
I
=Moment of inertia of the uncracked concrete section
mb
I
=Moment of inertia of main girder section in tension
mt
I
=Moment of inertia of main girder section in compression
t
I
=Moment of inertia of the top skin plate section
0
K
=Ratio between lateral earth pressure and vertical earth pressure
k = Coefficient of ground reaction; local buckling coefficient;
b
k
=Axial rigidity of bolt
c
a
k =Rigidity of axial spring
c
s
k

=Rigidity of shear spring
c
k

=Rigidity of rotational spring
d
k
=Shape factor
pu
k
=Axial rigidity of joint plate in compression
pl
k

=Axial rigidity of joint plate considering the initial tightening bolt
induced compressive strain released
si
K
=Initial stiffness of a shear stud
L =Length of segment
r
L
=Length of channel shear connector
b
M
=Moment carried by the bottom skin plate
c
M
=Moment carried by the concrete infill
t
M
=Moment carried by the top skin plate
mb
M
=Moment carried by the main girders in tension
mt
M
=Moment carried by the main girders in compression
N-A =Position of neutral axis
n =Number of shear connectors in a group; modular ratio;
XIX
P =Applied load
P
0
=Surcharge
u
P
=Ultimate tensile strength of a shear stud
u
Q
=Ultimate shear strength of a shear stud
n
Q
=Ultimate shear strength of a channel shear connector
q =Shear flow; shear flow force; longitudinal shear force per unit length
0
R
=Outer radius of the lining
c
R
=Radius of controid of the lining
r
=Radius of the internal corner
a
r
=Radius of a bolt hole
w
r
=Radius of a washer
S =Shear force of segmental lining
ult
s
=Slip at fracture
b
T
=Axial force carried by the bottom skin plate
c
T
=Axial force carried by the concrete infill
t
T
=Axial force carried by the top skin plate
mb
T
=Axial force carried by the main girders in tension
mt
T
=Axial force carried by the main girders in compression
t =Thickness of plate
t
j
=Thickness of joint plate
t
m
=Thickness of main girder
t
s
=Thickness of skin plate
w
t
=Thickness of a washer
V = ransverse shear load;
b
V
=Shear force carried by the bottom skin plate
c
V
=Shear force carried by the concrete infill
t
V
=Shear force carried by the top skin plate
mb
V
=Shear force carried by the main girders in tension
mt
V
=Shear force carried by the main girders in compression
W =Weight of lining per meter in longitudinal direction
XX

=A function of uniaxial compressive strength of concrete
c
f

=Coefficient of variability
V

=Reduction factor
t

=The top relative slip between the top skin plate and concrete infill
b

=The bottom relative slip between the bottom skin plate and concrete
infill
=Deflection

=Strain
c

=Strain in concrete
, h rup

=Ultimate transverse strain in the steel jacket at rupture

=Stress
1
,
2
,
3

=Principal stresses
1 2

=Shear stress
1
I
=First invariant of stress tensor
2
J
=Second invariant of stress tensor

=Curvature

The Mechanical Behavior and Design of Composite Segment for Shield Tunnel
1
Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 PREFACE

The subsurface under roads in big cities is already crowded with underground
facilities such as railroads, and tunnels for electricity, gas, communications, sewage and
drainage, and conduits. For example, the subsurface of a national highway in Tokyo has
about 33 km of conduits per kilometer of road as shown in Table1.1. For this reason,
newly constructed infrastructure such as subways etc. must be constructed deeper year
by year in order to avoid those conduits [1].

Table 1.1 Conduits under National Roads in the Wards of Tokyo (161.2km of national road
under direct administration of National Government)
Total length (km)
No. of kilometers (km) of underground
facilities per one road km
Telephone lines 2684.1 16.7
Electric lines 1660.7 10.3
Gas 325.9 2.0
Water supply lines 364.6 2.3
Sewage lines 315.7 2.0
Total 5351.0 33.3
From MLIT
Note: 1. Statistical data of April, 2004
2. Total length refers to total length of under-road conduits
3. Not include conduits to each building.

The shield tunneling method has rapidly become popular in Japan as an effective
tunneling method in urban and for constructing infrastructures. Recently, it has often
become necessary to construct tunnels under severe conditions and to develop new
techniques because there are some restrictions on the alignment of tunnels and the width
of street where the tunnels are located.

Introduction
2
Transverse joint
Skin plate
Main girder
Circumferential joint
Sealing groove
Joint plate
Segment hanger
Stud
Filling concrete

Transverse joint
Ductile cast iron
Infilled concrete
Reinforcing bar

(a) Closed-composite segment (b) Ductile Cast iron and reinforced concrete segment (DRC)[3]

(c) Steel Segment with Pre-filled Concrete (SSPC)[4]
Fig.1.1. Schematic and photo of composite segments

The use of underground space is not just to excavate deeply, but also to enlarge the
cross-section of tunnel and to replace the circular shape with rectangular, multi-circle or
other shape of cross-section in recent years. For these reasons, hydraulic pressure and
earth pressure acting on a tunnel lining are high and the occurred resultant forces are
very large. Therefore, tunnel lining (called segment in shield tunnel, hereinafter, called
segment) must satisfy the required performances under severe conditions. However,
traditional tunnel linings (called segment in shield tunnel, e.g. steel segment, concrete
segment, and ductile cast iron segment) can not satisfy the required performances,
because which have disadvantages in economy, product, transportation, and assembly
[2]. Therefore, the composite segments combined thin steel tube and concrete were
developed as shown in Fig.1.1. These composite segments have the following

3
advantages: (a) reducing the producing periods of composite segment by using steel
tube as permanent formwork for the concrete; (b) obtaining high dimensional accuracy
because of minimizing the deflection of steel form in welding process; (c)
manufacturing an arbitrary section and an arbitrary shape because of excellent
weldability; (d) not be damaged easily like concrete segment in assembling stage
because of six or five sides covered with the steel tube, and compositing a uniform
tunnel section; (e) easily assembling the composite segments because of having high
stiffness, the few openings of the joints, and high dimensional accuracy; (f) decreasing
the construction cost with decreasing the outside diameter of the shield machine and
muck, because the reduction of segment thickness can be achieved; (g) resisting large
flexural moment because of having large carrying capacity; (h) resisting the particular
loads for neighboring construction and sharply curved construction by increasing
thickness of the skin plates; (i) a rational structure for seismic design because of having
superior ductility; (j) the segment width can be enlarged for having stronger main
girders of steel.
Segments can also be classified by the materials used for their production, e.g.
concrete, steel, cast iron or a combination of these. Each material has its own peculiarity
as follows.
Compressive and buckling failure due to thrust force of shield jacks or earth
pressure seldom occurs, because concrete segments have fairly large rigidity and high
resistibility. They have also durability and provide excellent water-tightness if they can
be properly handled and assembled. However, the corner edges of RC segment are
easily damaged because of the segment weight and weak tensile strength. Careful
attention must be paid when the concrete form is removed and the concrete segments
are transported and assembled.
Steel segments are easy to handle, to work, and to modify on site because of
relatively light weight and uniform material, and can ensure the strength, and excellent
weldability. However, steel segments are easy to deform in comparison with the
concrete segments and thus needs to be made consideration to buckling failure in the
case of excessive thrust force or excessive back grouting pressure.
Ductile cast iron segments have excellent strength, good dimensional accuracy as

Introduction
4
products, and also provide excellent waterproof performance. They, like steel segment,
needs to be made consideration to buckling failure or to apply proper corrosion
protection, when the secondary lining is not executed.
Composite segments are composed of steel tube and concrete or Ductile cast iron
tube and concrete. Although composite segments are more expensive than RC segments,
which take advantage of the speed of construction, light weight and high strength of
steel, and the high-mass, rigidity, damping properties, and economy of concrete. In
addition, composite segments can resist the large sectional force induced by
asymmetrical pressure, high hydraulic pressure and earth pressure, and decrease the
height of the used segment and muck of the excavated tunnel cross-section.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY

The knowledge of this composite interactions as well as elemental behavior
involved in composite structure has developed rapidly during the past several decades.
Much effort has been put forth to better understand and model the behavior of the
composite structure. Research on the subject has been conducted worldwide (U.S.,
Japan, Canada, Europe and Australia).
However, a rational design method for the composite segments can not be
established, because the mechanical behavior of the composite segments is still not clear.
Especially, it is true problem that how to evaluate the effects of the interface slip and the
confinement effect of steel tube on the deflection of the concrete infill, to install the
number and arrangement of shear connectors, and to evaluate the contributions of
resultant forces in steel tube and concrete infill, and the deflection behavior of
composite section.
In general, many underground structures are designed by the allowable stress design
method. In this method various indeterminate factors such as variations in material
properties, acting loads, precision of estimated design loads, analysis model and
structural calculation method etc., are simply assumed based on factors of safety.
Shield tunnel linings (hereinafter called as segmental rings) consist of segments and
many connecting joints, and show complicated mechanical behavior under combined

5
loads. Meanwhile, it is difficult to precisely define the loads acting on segment rings
due to variation in construction conditions. Therefore, the allowable stress design
method as a simplified solution is still used in the design of segments for shield tunnel.
However, it is possible to predict the variations in acting loads and material
properties etc., because of the high technical developments of FEA and measuring
method for the last few years. Therefore, the allowable stress design method is not
rational in economy, because it is not able to directly assess the variations in material
strength, member size, and loads etc. On the contrary, the limit state design is able to
assess the variations in material strength, member size, and loads etc using factors of
safety based on the theories of probability, statistics, and reliability.
The limit state design requires the structure to satisfy two principal criteria: the
ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS). A limit state is a set of
performance criteria (e.g. vibration levels, deflection, strength, stability, buckling,
twisting, and collapse) that must be met when the structure is subject to loads.
To satisfy the ultimate limit state, the structure must not collapse when subjected to
the peak design load for which it was designed. A structure is deemed to satisfy the
ultimate limit state criteria if all factored bending, shear, and tensile or compressive
stresses are below the factored resistance calculated for the section under consideration.
The limit state criteria can also be set in terms of stress rather than load. Thus the
structural element being analyzed (e.g. a beam or a column or other load bearing
element, such as walls) is shown to be safe when the factored loads are less than their
factored resistance.
To satisfy the serviceability limit state criteria, a structure must remain functional
for its intended use subject to service loads, and as such the structure must not cause
occupant discomfort under design life.
It is true problem that the limit state design is not currently used in the segment
design for shield tunnel. Therefore, one of the purposes of developing a mechanical
model for composite segment is to provide tools suitable for limit state design. The
paper does not address safety coefficients as its purpose is to underscore the phenomena
involved in the issue rather than measuring structural safety.
The purpose of this study can be summarized as follows:

Introduction
6
(1) To evaluate the reliability of the existing provisions for the design of shear
connectors;
(2) To evaluate the reliability of the existing models of the unconfined concrete/
confined concrete;
(3) To study the mechanical behavior of composite segments using the experiments;
(4) To develop a FEM model to study the mechanical behavior of composite segments;
(5) To develop a mechanical model which can be used to analyze the nonlinear
behavior of composite segments with discrete partial shear connection under
combined loads.
(6) Applying the proposed mechanical model in the design method of composite
segment.

1.3 LAYOUT OF THIS DISSERTATION

In order to get an overview of this dissertation the following chapters are list below
with short description of the content.
Chapter 1 briefly introduces the research significance and the research tasks.
In Chapter 2, shear connectors are presented in general. The most common shear
connectors are studied but the focus is on the headed shear stud and rib shear connector.
This chapter also includes theories for mechanical properties of steel and unconfined
concrete/confined concrete materials.
Chapter 3 investigates the mechanical properties of Closed-composite segment by
using the experimental tests, which includes the deflection, load carrying capacity, and
the confinement effect of the composite segments applied on pure bending, when the
thickness of the plates, the dimensional size of shear connectors, the width and length of
the segments are changed.
Chapter 4 deals with structure simulation using the Finite Element Method. The
smeared cracked concrete model and contact analysis of interface between steel tube,
shear connectors, and concrete infill are considered. A comparison between the analyzed
and experimental results indicates that the proposed finite element model can simulate
the mechanical behavior of Closed-composite segments.

7
In Chapter 5, a nonlinear fiber element analysis method is developed for the
inelastic analysis and design of concrete infill steel tubular composite segments with
local buckling and slips effects. Sectional geometry, residual stresses and strain
hardening of steel tubes and confined concrete models were considered in the proposed
mechanical model. The local buckling, slip and effective strength formulas are
incorporated into the nonlinear analysis procedures to account for local buckling and
slip effects on the strength and ductility performance of composite segments under
combined loads. Comparisons are made between the experimental results of
Closed-composite segment and the mechanical predictions of behavior using the
proposed method. Good agreement is found and this indicates that the proposed method
is suitable for general analysis of Closed-composite segment.
Chapter 6 deals with structure simulation of SSPC segment and DRC segment using
FEM and the proposed method. Good agreement is found and this indicates that the
proposed finite element model and the proposed mechanical model is suitable for
general analysis of others type composite segments.
Chapter 7 deals with the cross-section design of composite segment of the fourth
section of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel based
on the above proposed model.
Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the outcomes of this research work, draws associated
conclusions.

1.4 REFERENCES

1) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Government of Japan (MLIT), 2005.
Progress in the use of the Deep Underground.
2) Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2006. Standard specifications for tunneling-2006,
Shield tunnels.
3) Masami, Shirato, et al.2003. Development of new composite segment and application
to the tunneling project. Journal of JSCE, No.728, 157-174. (In Japanese)
4) Japan Steel Segment Association (JSSA), 1995. The report of development of Steel
Segment with Pre-filled Concrete(SSPC) . (In Japanese)

The Mechanical Behavior and design of Composite Segment for Shield Tunnel
9
Chapter 2. Material Properties

2.1 STEEL COMPONENT

The primary purpose of the steel element in a composite beam is to carry tensile
stresses, while in composite columns the steel shares in the carrying of compressive
stresses with the concrete. It is the high strength of the steel, coupled with its ductility,
which makes it such a vital component of a composite member.
The steel section is usually made from so-called mild or structural steel. The real
stress-strain curve for a tensile coupon of SS400 steel is shown in Fig. 2.1. Tensile and
yield strengths of the structural steel were obtained by tensional testing according to
Japanese Structural Steel Specification. Initially, the stress-strain curve is linear with an
elastic modulus
s
E . For most mild steels, the modulus
s
E is close to
5 2
2.0 10 N/mm , and
this is the value generally used in design. If the stress is removed in the elastic zone, the
0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
4.5mm
2
5
m
m
Strain hardening
Plastic flow
Plastic plateau
Elastic
st
E
1
1
5 2
2.0 10 N/mm
s
E =
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
N
/
m
m
2
)
Strain
Real strain-stress(SS400)

Fig.2.1 Stress-Strain curve of the structural steel

Material Properties
10
steel recovers perfectly on unloading. The linear elastic behavior continues until the
yield stress
y
f is reached, at a yield strain
y s
f / E
y
= . Further straining results in plastic
flow with little or no increase in stress until the strain hardening strain is reached. The
stress in the steel then increases until its ultimate tensile strength is attained. The
cross-section then begins to neck down, with large reductions in the cross-sectional area,
until the steel finally fractures.
Undoubtably, the most important strength property of the steel element is its yield
strength
y
f . In most composite applications, this value is usually between about 250 and
350 N/mm
2
, although in some structures it may be higher, and it depends largely on the
chemical constituents of the steel, primarily carbon and manganese. The yield stress is
increased with increased amounts of these elements, as well as the amount of working
which takes place during the rolling process. Higher yield stresses are also observed
under higher strain rates / d dt of loading. Generally speaking, the higher the yield
stress, the less is the plastic plateau in Fig. 2.1 and consequently the ductility is
decreased. Because of this, many structural steel standards place limits on the yield
stress of the steel that may be used, since ductility is a desired requirement in structural
design.
Under uniaxial compression, the stress-strain characteristics of the steel section are
roughly the same as those in tension up to the plastic range. The yield
stress
y
f determined from a tensile strength test is generally accepted as being the same
for compression, along with the elastic modulus
s
E . However, the steel section under
compression is often subjected to buckling or instability effects.
Quite often, it is appropriate to treat the stress in the steel section as being uniaxial.
However, the general state of stress at a point in a thin-wall member is one of biaxial
tension and/or compression, and yielding under these conditions is not so simply
determined, which uses the notation of Trahair and Bradford [1,2]. The most accepted
theory of two-dimensional yielding under biaxial stresses is the von Mises' maximum
distortion energy theory, and the stresses at yield according to this theory satisfy the
condition
2 2 2 2
1 1 2 2 1 2
3
y
f

+ + = (2.1)

11
where
1

,
2

are the normal stress, and
12

is the shear stress at the point. For the case
where1' and 2' are the principal stress directions 1 and 2, Eq.(2.1) takes the form of the
ellipse shown in Fig.2.2, while for the case of pure shear(
1 2
0

= = ,so that
1 2 1 2

= = ), Eq.(2.1) reduces to
12
3
y
y
f

= = (2.2)
which defines the shear yield stress, so that the close approximation 0.6
y y
f = is
often used in design.
(a) Two-dimensional Stress Space
Yield surface
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

2
/
f
y
Principal stress ratio
2
/f
y
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Uniaxial compression
Pure shear
Uniaxial tension

1
Yield surface
Elastic
region
(b) -Plane

Fig.2.2 Von Mises' yield criterion

2.2 CONCRETE COMPONENT

The second major component contributing to the strength and stiffness of a composite
member is the concrete. The concrete is produced by mixing cement powder with coarse
aggregate (gravel), fine aggregate (sand) and water. Quite often, fly ash and slag waste
from steel blast furnaces are added to increase the workability of the wet concrete mix,
and to reduce the cost of the cement which in terms of mass is the most expensive major
component of the concrete mix.
The strength of hardened concrete varies inversely with its water/cement ratio.
Because the workability of the concrete is reduced as this ratio decreases, it is not
uncommon to introduce various organic admixtures, apart from slag and fly ash, such as
lingo-sulphonate to the mix. A water/cement ratio (by weight) of at least 0.25 is required

Material Properties
12
to hydrate the cement properly, and water/cement ratios in the range 0.35 to 0.50 are
commonly used for normal strength concretes.
Limit states or load and resistance factor design necessitate that both strength and
stiffness requirements of the concrete are met. In achieving these requirements, it must
be noted that the properties of the concrete.

2.2.1 Concrete properties
Concrete is a variable material, and identical strength tests undertaken at a given time
after casting show significant variability. However, the mean strength
cm
f in uniaxial
compression increases with concrete age. The major shortfall of the concrete portion of
a composite member is its low tensile strength, so that strengths usually quoted for
concrete are in terms of the uniaxial compressive strength.
Concrete compressive strengths are determined by testing specimens of identical
shape, which have been cured under the same conditions, in a stiff hydraulic testing
machine. In Japan, the standard test specimen is a 50/100 mm diameter cylinder, which
is 100/150 mm high. North America and in Australia, the standard test specimen is a
150 mm diameter cylinder, which is 300 mm high with its top capped with sulphur. On
the other hand, British practice is to use a 150 mm sided cube. Because of the shape
effects, the cube strengths
cu
f are higher than the cylinder strengths
c
f . Generally
throughout this paper, reference will be made to cylinder strengths of Japanese standard
test specimen.
It is well known that confinement of concrete is effective in increasing its strength
and deformation capacity. It is generally agreed that the strength and stiffness of
confined concrete increases with the stiffness of the confining material as well as the
compressive strength of the unconfined concrete. Because of confinement effect, both
the unconfined and confined properties of concrete must be addressed. These properties
are studied in the following.

(a) Constitutive Models for Unconfined Concrete
In the concrete compressive stage, the stress-strain relation proposed by Carreira and
Chu [3] has been employed to model the elastic-plastic material characteristics with

13
strain softening:
1
c
c
c
c
c
c
f

=

+

(2.3)
where
c
is compressive stress in concrete(
2
N/mm );
c
is strain in concrete;
c
f

is
uniaxial compressive strength of concrete(
2
N/mm );
c

is strain corresponding to
c
f

;
and as a function of uniaxial compressive strength of concrete
c
f

, can be estimated
by the following formula[4]
3
1.55
c
f

= +

(2.4)
The coefficient of variability increases when increasing the compressive strength of
the concrete. Therefore, if
2
21.0N/mm
c
f

= , 22.0 = and if
2
80.0N/mm
c
f

= , 71.4 = ,
for intermediate stress gradients, can be determined by linear interpolations. The
proposed relation for was found using regression analysis based experimental values
shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. The parameters of unconfined concrete
Compressive
strength
2
(N/mm )
c
f

Elastic
Modulus
2
(kN/mm )
c
E
Tensile strength
2
(N/mm )
t
f

Peak strain
c

Unit weight
(kN/m
3
)

21 22 1.75 0.00205 23 22.0
24 25 1.91 0.00219 23 24.5
27 26 2.07 0.00232 23 27.1
30 28 2.22 0.00245 23 29.6
40 31 2.69 0.00283 23 37.3
50 33 3.12 0.00316 23 39.5
60 35 3.53 0.00346 23 46.5
70 37 3.91 0.00374 23 55.0
80 39 4.27 0.00400 23 71.4
6
447.2 10
c c
f

= or
ci
2 /
c
f E
[5];
ci
E is the initial tangent modulus of concrete

Material Properties
14
Concrete in tension is considered as a linear-elastic material until the uniaxial tensile
strength
t
f

, can be estimated by the following equation [5]
2 / 3
0.23( )
t c
f f
= (2.5)
A comparison of the calculated results of the above proposed constitutive relation for
unconfined concrete and the test results is shown in Fig.2.3. It is shown that the above
proposed constitutive relation is consistent and agrees well with the test results.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2
36.6(N/mm )
c
f

=
0.00239
c

=
concrete
=35.2
1
5
0
m
m
100mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
Strain()
Test stress-strain curve
Eq.(2.3) stress-strain curve
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
0.002346
c

=
2
41.7(N/mm )
c
f

=
concrete
=39.5
1
5
0
m
m
100mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
Strain()

(a) (b)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.004707
c

=
2
84.4(N/mm )
c
f

=
mortar
=71.4
1
0
0
m
m
50mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
Strain()
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
c
f

c
f

c
f

c
f

c
f

c
f

c
f

c
f

c
f

S
t
r
e
s
s
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
Strain()
=21N/mm
2
=24N/mm
2
=27N/mm
2
=30N/mm
2

=40N/mm
2
=50N/mm
2
=60N/mm
2
=70N/mm
2
=80N/mm
2

(c) (d)
Fig.2.3 Stress-strain curves for unconfined concrete

(b) Constitutive Models for Confined Concrete
It is known that the increase in strength of confined concrete is a result of the
combination of lateral pressure and axial compression, which put the concrete in a

15
triaxial stress state. The lateral pressure is provided by lateral steel reinforcement and a
steel jacket. Based on the test results, various stress-strain models for confined concrete
have been proposed, such as Sheikh and Uzumeri[6], Mander et al.[7], and Cusson and
Paultre[8]models. Existing stress-strain models for confined, unconfined normal, as
well as high strength concrete can be divided into three broad categories. One group of
researchers used a form of equation proposed by Sargin et al.[9](Table 2.2). The second
group of researchers proposed second order parabola for the ascending branch and a
straight line for the descending branch and their studies were based on equations
proposed by Kent and Park [10]( Table2.3). The third group developed stress-strain
relations based on equations suggested by Popovics[11] (Table 2.4).
In these stress-strain models,
1 1
( , ) are the coordinates of any point in the
stress-strain curve,
co
is the peak axial strain of unconfined concrete strength
c
f ,
cc

is the peak axial strain of confined concrete strength
cc
f ,
l
f is the confining pressure,
c
E is the elastic modulus of concrete,
i
E is the initial tangent modulus, and
f
E is the
secant modulus of concrete measured at peak stress.

Table 2.2. Stress-Strain Models for Confined Concrete Based on Sargin et al. [9]
2 2
( 1) / 1 ( 2) Y AX D X A X DX = + + +

;
1 cc
/ Y f = ;
1 cc
/ X =
Researcher
A D
Sargin et al. [9] /
c co c
E kf
3
0.65 7.25 10
c
f

Wang et al. [12] Different parameters for ascending and descending branches
Ahmad and
Shah [13] /
i f
E E
oct
1.111 0.876 4.0883( / )
c
A f + ;
( )
oct
2
3
c l
f f =
El-Dash and
Ahmad[14]
/
c f
E E
0.033
sp
(16.5 ) /( / )
c l
f f s d

Attard and
Setunge [15] cc cc
/
i
E f
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2
2 2
cc cc cc
1 / 1 / (1 ) / / 1 /
l l l
A f f A f f f f +

Assa et al. [16]
cc cc
/
c
E f
( )
( )
( ) ( )
2 2
80 cc 80 cc 80 cc
/ 0.2 1.6 / 0.8 / / A

+ +

80
is the strain corresponding to 80% of the peak stress,
cc
0.80 f

Material Properties
16
Table 2.3. Stress-Strain Models for Confined Concrete Based on Kent and Park [10]
Researcher
Ascending branch ( )
1
Descending branch ( )
1

Kent and Park[10]
( ) ( )
2
cc 1 1
2 / 0.002 / 0.002 f

( )
cc m 1
1 0.002 f Z

Sheikh and
Uzumeri [6]
( ) ( )
2
c 1 cc 1 cc
2 / / Kf

( )
cc m 1 cc
1 f Z

Park et al. [17]
( ) ( )
2
c 1 1
2 / 0.002 / 0.002 Kf K K

c
1.0
s yh
f
K
f
= + ;
s
= volumetric ratio of transverse
steel in concrete core;
yh
f = yield strength of transverse steel
( )
c m 1
1 0.002 Kf Z K

Scott et al. [18] Same as Park et al. (1982)
Samra [19] Same as Kent and Park (1971)
Saatcioglu and
Razvi [20]
( ) ( )
1/(1 2 )
2
cc 1 cc 1 cc
2 / /
K
f
+

( )
cc m 1 cc
1 f Z

Saatcioglu et al.
[21]
Same as Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)
Razvi and
Saatcioglu [22]
cc
/( 1 )
r
f xr r x ( )
cc m 1 cc
1 f Z

Mendis et al. [23]
( ) ( )
2
c 1 cc 1 cc
2 / / Kf

( )
c m 1 cc
1 Kf Z

Shah et al. [24]
( )
cc 1 cc
1 /
A
f

( )
1.15
1 cc
cc
k
f e

17
Table 2.4. Stress-Strain Models for Confined Concrete Based on Kent and Park [10]
Researcher
Ascending branch ( )
1
Descending branch ( )
1

Popovics[11]
( ) ( )
c 1 co 1 co
/ /( 1) /
n
f n n

+

;
c
0.058 1 n f = +
Carreira and Chu[3]
cc
/( 1 ) f x

Mander et al.[25]
cc
/( 1 )
r
f r r x
Hsu and Hsu [26]
( ) ( )
{ } cc 1 cc 1 cc
/ / 1 /
k
f k k

0.8( )0.5
cc
0.3
d
x x
f e

Cusson and Paultre [8]
cc
/( 1 ) f x

1 1 cc 2
( )
cc
k k
f e

Wee et al. [27]
cc
/( 1 ) f x

( )
c co
1
1 /
i
f E

2
1 cc
/( 1 )
k
k f x

3.0
1
c
50
k
f

=

;
1.3
2
c
50
k
f

=

Hoshikuma et al.
[28]
( )
1
c 1 1 cc
1 (1/ ) /
n
E n

c cc
c cc cc
E
n
E f

( )
cc des cc c
f E
des
E is deterioration rate,
and can be calculated by
regression analysis of test
data in the range of
cc
to
cu

In general, we assume that the strength of confined concrete is related to the
contribution of the confinement pressure. Therefore, the strength of confined concrete
can be expressed as the sum of the strength of unconfined concrete and the strength
increase due to the confining stress. For the concrete filled steel tubular(CFST) as
shown in Fig.2.4, the core concrete and the steel tube are in a complex three
dimensional stress state, because the lateral deformation of concrete is confined by the
steel tube when CFST structures are compressed in the axial direction. Therefore, the
lateral confining pressures
lx
f ,
ly
f must be evaluated in the two orthogonal directions,
respectively. For the lateral confining pressure
l
f as shown in Fig.2.4(c) is calculated as

Material Properties
18
Steel jacket
Concrete
2
t
1
t
b
h
H
B

(a) CFST member details and dimensions

Confined core
Unconfined
H
B

(b) Effectively confined region by steel jacket
l
f
s l
k f
Equivalent
Average
Actual

(c) Variation of confinement pressure
Fig.2.4 CFST member

follows[29]:

,
2
s
l lx ly h rup
tE
f f f
D
= = = (2.6)
where
s
E andt are the elastic modulus and the thickness of steel jacket respectively, t is

19
taken as the smaller of
1
t and
2
t ;
, h rup
is the ultimate transverse strain in the steel jacket
at rupture; and D is the diameter of an equivalent circular section given as
2 2
D h b = + ,where h is the short side and b is the long side of the cross-section.
As a function of ratio of the effectively confined area
e
A to the cross sectional area
c
A ;
shape factor can be expressed as [30]
( ) ( )
2 2
2 2
1
3 (1 )
e
s
c s
A b r h r
k
A bh
+
= =
(2.7)
where r is the radius of the internal corner; and
s
is the ratio of the longitudinal steel
jacket in the cross-section. The effective lateral pressure
l
f

acting on the concrete due to
the steel jacket can be calculated as follows:
l s l
f k f
= (2.8)
where
s
k is the effectiveness coefficient representing the ratio of the effectively
confined area to the total cross section area.
l
f can be considered as the possible
maximum confining pressure that exerted by steel jacket on the concrete core whereas
l
f

can be accepted as minimum confining pressure assumed uniformly distributed over
the surface of the concrete core as given in Eq. (2.6).
Attard and Setunge [31] proposed the equations for axial strain corresponding to peak
axial stress
cc

( )
cc
c
c
1 17 0.06
l
c
f
f
f
= +

(2.9)
where
l
f is confining pressure and
c

is axial strain corresponding to peak uniaxial
compressive strength. Peak axial stress for confined concrete
cc
f is defined as
cc
c t
1
l
f f
f f

= +

(2.10)
where constant = given by
( )
0.21
c
t
1.25 1 0.062
l
f
f
f

= +

(2.11)
and the tensile strength
t
f

is given by Eq.(2.5).
The experimental data from the triaxial tests conducted by Ansari and Li[32], Attard

Material Properties
20
and Setunge[31], and Candappa et al.[33] were used to verify the calculated
cc
f and
cc
by the above Eqs.(2.9) and (2.10).

Table 2.5 Experimental and Analytical Curve Parameters of Candappa et al.
Analytical Experimental
c
f
(MPa)
l
f
(MPa)
co

(10
-3
)
cc

(10
-3
)
cc
f
(MPa)
cc

(10
-3
)
cc
f
(MPa)
cc
cc
(an)
(exp)
f
f

cc
cc
(an)
(exp)

100 4 2.80 4.03 132.6 3.91 132.4 1.002 1.031
100 8 2.80 5.26 158.2 6.09 156.4 1.012 0.864
2
0
0
m
m
98mm

100 12 2.80 6.50 180.2 7.11 170.7 1.056 0.914

Table 2.6 Experimental and Analytical Curve Parameters of Attard-Setunge
c
f
(MPa)
l
f
(MPa)
co

(10
-3
)
cc

(10
-3
)
cc
f
(MPa)
cc

(10
-3
)
cc
f
(MPa)
cc
cc
(an)
(exp)
f
f

cc
cc
(an)
(exp)
110 5 2.90 4.27 150.2 3.80 150.0 1.001 1.124

110 10 2.90 5.64 181.0 4.7 171.3 1.057 1.200
2
0
0
m
m
100mm
110 15 2.90 7.01 207.0 5.35 192.0 1.078 1.310

Table 2.7 Experimental and Analytical Curve Parameters of Imran-Pantazopoulou [34]
c
f
(MPa)
l
f
(MPa)
co

(10
-3
)
cc

(10
-3
)
cc
f
(MPa)
cc

(10
-3
)
cc
f
(MPa)
cc
cc
(an)
(exp)
f
f

cc
cc
(an)
(exp)
73.4 3.20 3.25 5.03 93.9 4.95 96.1 0.977 1.016

73.4 6.40 3.25 6.82 111.0 6.50 108.7 1.021 1.049
73.4 12.80 3.25 10.39 139.5 10.45 125.6 1.111 0.994
73.4 25.60 3.25 17.53 185.7 20.25 168.6 1.101 0.866
73.4 38.40 3.25 24.67 225.0 31.05 204.0 1.103 0.795

1
1
0
m
m
55mm

73.4 51.20 3.25 31.81 261.0 40.90 240.5 1.085 0.778

21
The predictions of the confinement models agree well with the experimental data, and
are shown in Tables. 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
The stress-strain curve by Montoya et al.[35] was adopted to model the compressive
behavior of confined concrete. The stress
c
is related to the strain
c
using the
following formula:
2
1.0
cc
c
c c
cc cc
f
A B C
f f

=

+ +

(2.12)
where
d
A k = ;
sec
2
A
B
E
= ;
2
sec
A
C
E
= ; and
sec
cc
cc
f
E
= . The shape factor

d
k is given by the
following formula:
2
80
1
4
cc
d
cc c
f
k

=

(2.13)

where
80 c
cc
0.80 f ,and given by the
following formula:
( )
80
1.5 89.5 0.6
l
c c c
c
f
f
f

= +

(2.14)

2.2.2 Yield and failure criterion for concrete

The Buyukozturk yield criterion [36] (adopted in MSC.MARC Code [37]) is used in
nonlinear analysis to identify the yielding condition of concrete. This criterion of
isotropic hardening and associated flow rule is developed to account for the two major
sources of nonlinearity: the progressive cracking of concrete in tension, and the
nonlinear response of concrete under multi-axial compression. Using this criterion,
incremental stress-strain relationships are established in suitable form for the nonlinear
finite element analysis.

Material Properties
22
t
f
2
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
Failure surface
t
f
c
f
c
f

bc
f

bc
f
First yield surface
Compression-Compression
zone
Compression-tension
zone
Compression
Tension-tension
zone

Fig.2.5 Buyukozturk yield and failure envelopes for concrete
The proposed failure criterion for concrete by Buyukozturk shown in Fig.2.5 is given
by the following formula:
2 2
2 0 1 1 0
3 3 J I I + + = (2.15)
where
1
I is the first invariant of stress tensor;
2
J is the second invariant of stress tensor;
and , and
0
are material constants. These constants are to be determined from
the test data. For the concrete strength range used by Liu et al [38], and Kupfer et al [39],
, and
0
constants were determined by a numerical trial procedure. The best fit
was found by
3 = , 1/ 5 = and
0
/ 3 P = (2.16)
where P is uniaxial compressive strength of concrete.

2.3 Shear connectors

The bond which must be achieved between the steel element and the concrete
element in a composite member is crucial to the composite action. When the two
elements only touch at an interface such as shown in Fig. 2.6, then they are often tied
together using mechanical forms of shear connection, examples of which are given in

23
Head
Shank
Weld collar
H
e
i
g
h
t
tw
(a) Stud (b) Bolt (c) Channel (d) Rib
Concrete element
t
f
tw tw
t
f

Fig.2.6 Shear connectors

Fig. 2.6. In all cases, the bond must be designed to resist the longitudinal shear forces at
the steel-concrete interface. However, the bond must also be designed to prevent
separation between the steel and concrete elements in order to ensure that the curvature
in the steel and concrete elements is the same. Hence the interface bond must be able to
resist both tensile forces normal to the steel-concrete interface, and shear forces parallel
to the steel-concrete interface.
Shear stud connectors, as shown in Fig. 2.6. (a), are probably the most common type
of mechanical shear connector used, and consist of a bolt that is electrically welded to
the steel member using an automatic welding procedure. The shank and the weld-collar
adjacent to the steel plate are designed to resist the longitudinal shear load, whereas the
head is designed to resist the tensile loads that are normal to the steel-concrete interface.
Bolts can also be attached directly to the plate, prior to casting the concrete, through
friction welding by spinning the bolt whilst in contact with the flange, or by bolting as
shown in Fig. 2.6. (b). in hand welded channels (c), the longitudinal shear load is
resisted mainly by the bottom flange of the channel whilst the top flange resists the
tensile loads normal to the steel-concrete interface. (d) Rib shear connectors rely on
friction and on an aggregate interlock effect.
There is an enormous variety of mechanical shear connectors varying in shape, size,
and methods of attachment. However, they all have the following important similarities.
They are steel dowels embedded in a concrete medium, they have a component that is
designed to transmit longitudinal shear forces, they have a component that is designed
to resist normal tensile forces and hence prevent separation at the steel-concrete

Material Properties
24
interface, and they all impart highly concentrated loads onto the concrete element.
In steel and concrete composite structures, the shear connectors significantly
affecting deformation and maximum carrying capacity [2], is mostly realized by means
of deformable studs [40,41], whereby steel plate to concrete infill shear occurs with
relative slip causing partial interaction [42]. This connection features limited slip
capacity and requires checking to ensure composite beam bending capacity with no
early connection failure [43]. Therefore, currently, the mechanical behavior of shear
connectors used in composite segments for shield tunnel-grouped headed stud and rib
connector will be studied in the following subsections:

2.3.1 Behavior of Shear Stud
Although many researchers have investigated the static strength of the shear stud
since the 1950s, perhaps the most extensive research on the static behavior of the
headed stud was performed by Ollgaard, Slutter, and Fisher [44]. They looked at the
effect of the compressive and tensile strength, density, aggregate type, and modulus of
elasticity of the concrete, the diameter of the stud, and the number of connectors per
slab in a standard push-out test. Johnson and Molenstra [45] investigated the effect of
the strength and modulus of elasticity of stud material on the static capacity of the shear
connector and found it to be influential.

(a) Strength of Shear Stud
Many design equations have been developed to estimate the ultimate static strength
of the stud shear connectors. Different researchers have found different variables to be
influential on the static strength. Ollgaard, Slutter, and Fisher [44] proposed an equation
based on concrete properties and on the ultimate tensile strength of shear stud. Oehlers
et al [2] modified the proposed equation of shear strength by Ollgaard, Slutter, and
Fisher. They assumed concrete failure based on a 45 degrees cone, and gave the shear
strength of a shear stud in composite beam:
0.40
0.65 0.35
sh
1.3
5.3 ( )
c
u su c
s
E
Q A f f
E n

=

(2.17)
where
u
Q is ultimate shear strength of a shear stud(N); n is the number of shear studs in

25
a group;
sh
A is the cross-sectional area of the shank of a shear stud(mm
2
);
c
f is uniaxial
compressive strength of the concrete(
2
N/mm );
su
f is the ultimate tensile strength of a
shear stud(
2
N/mm );
c
E is elastic modulus of the concrete(
2
N/mm );
s
E is elastic modulus
of the steel(
2
N/mm ).
The ultimate tensile strength of a shear stud is given by the following equation [2]:
sh sh hd
sh
2
sh
( )
0.64
2.5
c
u
f h h d
P A
d n

+

=

(2.18)
where
u
P is ultimate tensile strength of a shear stud(N);
sh
h is the height of the shank of
a shear stud(mm);
hd
d is the diameter of the head of a shear stud(mm);
sh
d is the diameter
of the shank of a shear stud(mm) .

(b) Load-Slip Curve
Ollgaard, Slutter, and Fisher [44] also derived an empirical expression on the
load-slip relationship for shear stud:
( )
0.4
0.7087
1
u
Q Q e

= (2.19)
where Q is the applied load(N); is the slip of shear stud(mm).
This equation has a vertical slope at zero load. This was observed by Ollgaard, Slutter,
and Fisher [44] in the load-slip curves due to the bond between the concrete slab and the
steel girder. However, bond at the steel-concrete interface may be lost after being
subjected to service loads for some period of time. Therefore, it is believed that Eq.
(2.19) overestimates the initial stiffness of the shear stud. The stiffness at 0.5
u
Q was
proposed as initial stiffness of a shear stud by Oehlers and Bradford [2]. It can be seen
in Eq. (2.20) that the initial tangent stiffness
si
K increases with the cylinder strength
c
f .
( )
sh
0.16 0.0017
u
si
c
Q
K
d f
=
(2.20)
where
si
K is initial stiffness of a shear stud(N/mm)
Oehlers and Coughlan[41] derived the stiffness of the stud shear connector under
static and dynamic loads from 116 push-out test results. From the results of 42 push-out
specimens with 19 mm and 22 mm diameter shear studs, a static load-slip curve was

Material Properties
26
derived from linear regression analyses. Eq. (2.21) shows the load-slip relationship as
the ratio of the slip to the shear stud diameter.
( )
sh c
A B f d

= + (2.20)
The coefficients A and B are listed in Table 2.8[46]. Fig.2.7 shows load-slip
relationships for a shear stud under static loading according to Eqs.(2.19) and (2.20).
Maximum strength of the stud shear connector is assumed to be 95.9kN.

Table 2.8 Coefficients for static stiffness of a shear stud per Equation 2.20 [46]
/
u
Q Q
A(10
-3
) B(10
-2
)
/
u
Q Q
A(10
-3
) B(10
-2
)
0.1 22 20 0.85 138 72
0.2 40 37 0.9 156 70
0.3 52 48 0.95 223 119
0.4 63 55 0.99 319 170
0.5 80 73 1.0 371 208
0.6 102 96 1.0 406 251
0.7 120 102 0.99
*
475 356
0.8 143 108 0.99
*
453 178
*: Reducing loads
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Slip(mm)
Ollgaard et al. (1971)
Oehlers and Coughlan (1986)

Fig.2.7 Load-slip curves for shear studs

27
(c) Ultimate Slip Capacity
Oehlers and Bradford [43] gave the descending branch of the load-slip curve when
fracture of a shear stud. If fracture of a shear stud is assumed to occur when the load has
reduced by 1 % from its peak, then the mean value of
ult
s , is given by
( ) ult sh
0.48 0.0042
c
s f d
= (2.21)
where again the units are in N and mm. The lower 95% characteristic ultimate slip is
given by substituting 0.42 for 0.48 in Eq. (2.21). It can be seen that the slip at fracture
ult
s reduces as the cylinder strength
c
f increases, and hence connectors encased in
strong concrete are less ductile than those in weak concrete, and so are more prone to
fracture. The stiffness
si
K and the slip
ult
s were derived from experimental tests in
which the compressive cylinder strengths
c
f varied from 23N/mm
2
to 82N/mm
2
.

(d) Effect of spacing on shear capacity
Shear studs are often arranged longitudinally and transversally with smaller spacing
between studs (this is referred to hereafter as the grouped arrangement). If shear studs
are grouped very closely together in the connection, the required performance may not
be satisfied. Investigations on grouped arrangement of shear studs indicated that the
strength of shear stud is different in the different grouped arrangement because of the
interaction with the next shear studs. The reduction factor proposed by Okada et al
[47] is given by
2
2
2
2
2
0.023 0.70 3 13, 25(N/mm )
0.021 0.73 3 13, 30(N/mm )
0.016 0.80 3 13, 40(N/mm )
0.013 0.84 3 13, 50(N/mm )
1 13, 25(N/mm )
l l c
l l c
l l c
l l c
l c
a a f
a a f
a a f
a a f
a f
+ < =
+ < =
= + < =
+ < =
(2.22)
where
1 sh
( / )
l
a S d = is the longitudinal spacing factor;
1
S is the longitudinal spacing of
shear studs(mm).

Material Properties
28
(e) Effect of plate thickness on shear capacity
Tests at Southampton University examined the effect of varying plate thickness and
distance between plates [48-51]. The reduction factor
V
induced by the plate thickness
is given by
yp
(0.024 0.76) and 1
355
V V
f
t = + (2.23)
where
yp
f is yield stress of steel plate (
2
yp
355N/mm f ), and t is thickness of steel
plate ( 10mm t ).

2.3.2 Behavior of Rib connector

The rib shear connectors (shown in Fig.2.6 (d)) can be considered as the deformed
types of the channel shear connector (shown in Fig.2.6 (c)). Therefore, the strength
calculation formula for rib shear connector can use the strength equation of channel
shear connector. The current American Standard (AISC 1993[52]) provides the
following equation for calculating the strength of a channel shear connector embedded
in a solid concrete slab:
f w r
0.3( 0.5 )
n c c
Q t t L f E = + (2.24)
where
n
Q is in Newton;
f
t is the flange thickness of channel shear connector(mm);
w
t
is the web thickness of channel shear connector(mm); and
r
L is the length of channel
shear connector(mm).
However, the study of Amit Pashan[53] reported that the web thickness, the area of
the channel in contact with the concrete should be considered in the calculation formula
for the strength of channel shear connector. Therefore, Amit Pashan proposed the
following equation for calculating the strength of a channel shear connector embedded
in a solid concrete slab:
2
f w r w r w n c c c c
Q At t f BL H f Ct L f Dt f = + + + (2.25)
where A, B, C, D are constants to be determined; H is Height of channel connector(mm).
The experimental results of the 18 push-out specimens with solid concrete slabs

29
were used for the regression analysis, and yielded A, B, C, D as
A=597.058; B=5.378; C=-19.066; D=-23.672.
If the above yielded coefficients A, B, C and D are rounded to 597, 5.4, -19 and
-23.7 respectively, and substituted these values into Eq.(2.25). The final form of the
proposed equation is:
2
f w r w r w
597 5.4 19 23.7
n c c c c
Q t t f L H f t L f t f = + (2.26)
where
n
Q is in Newton;
f
t is the flange thickness of channel shear connector(mm);
w
t
is the web thickness of channel shear connector(mm); and
r
L is the length of channel
shear connector(mm); H is Height of channel connector(mm);
c
f

is uniaxial
compressive strength of concrete(
2
N/mm ).

2.4. REFERENCES

1) Trahair, N.S. and Bradford, M.A., 1991. The Behaviour and Design of Steel
Structures, revised 2
nd
edn., Chapman and Hall, London.
2) Deric J Oehlers, Mark A Bradford, 1995: Composite steel and concrete structural
members, UK: Pergamon, Elsevier Science ,1-28.
3) Carreira, D. J., K.H. Chu,1985. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in
compression. J., Proc., ACI, 82(11), 797-804.
4) Wenjun, Zhang, Atsushi,Koizumi,2007. Relative slip of interface between concrete
and steel of closed-composite segment. Modern tunnelling technology. pp40-45.
5) Japan concrete committee, 2005. Standard specifications for concrete structures-2002
(structural performance verification).
6) Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M.,1982 . Analytical model for concrete confinement
in tied columns. J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 108 12 ,2703-2722.
7) Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. ,1988. Theoretical stress-strain model
for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804-1826.
8) Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. ,1995. Stressstrain model for confined high strength
concrete. J. Struct. Eng., 121(3), 468477.
9) Sargin, M., Ghosh, S. K., and Handa, V. K. ,1971. Effects of lateral reinforcement

Material Properties
30
upon the strength and deformation properties of concrete. Mag. Concrete Res.,
23(75-76), 99-110.
10) Kent, D. C., and Park, R.,1971. Flexural members with confined concrete.J. Struct.
Div. ASCE, 97(7), 1969-1990.
11) Popovics, S., 1973. A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of
concrete. Cem. Concr. Res., 3(5), 583-599.
12) Wang, P. T., Shah, S. P., and Naaman, A. E. ,1978. Stress-strain curves of normal
and lightweight concrete in compression. ACI J., 75(11),603-611.
13) Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S. P. ,1982. Stress-strain curves of concrete confined by
spiral reinforcement. ACI J., 79(6), 484-490.
14) El-Dash, K. M., and Ahmad, S. H. ,1995. A model for stress-strain relationship of
spirally confined normal and high-strength concrete columns. Mag. Concrete Res.,
47(171), 177-184.
15) Attard, M. M., and Setunge, S. ,1996. Stress-strain relationship of confined and
unconfined concrete. ACI Mater. J., 93(5), 432-442.
16) Assa, B., Nishiyama, M., and Watanabe, F. ,2001. New approach for modeling
confined concrete. I: Circular columns. J. Struct. Eng.,127(7), 743-750.
17) Park, R., Priestley, M. J. N., and Gill, W. D. ,1982. Ductility of square confined
concrete columns. J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 108(4), 929-950.
18) Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, N. ,1982. Stress-strain behavior of concrete
confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI J., 79(1), 13-27.
19) Samra, R. M., 1990. Ductility analysis of confined columns. J. Struct. Eng., 116(11),
3148-3161.
20) Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R.,1992. Strength and ductility of confined concrete.
J. Struct. Eng., 118(6), 1590-1607.
21) Saatcioglu, M., Salamat, A. H., and Razvi, S. R. ,1995. Confined columns under
eccentric loading. J. Struct. Eng., 121(11), 1547-1556.
22) Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M.,1999. Confinement model for high strength concrete.
J. Struct. Eng., 125(3), 281-289.
23) Mendis, P., Pendyala, R., and Setunge, S.,2000. Stress-strain model to predict the
full-range moment curvature behavior of high-strength concrete sections. Mag.

31
Concrete Res., 52(4), 227-234.
24) Shah, S. P., A., and Arnold, R.,1983. Cyclic loading of spirally reinforced concrete.
J. Struct. Eng., 109(7), 1695-1710.
25) Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R.,1988. Observed stress-strain
behavior of confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng., 114(8),1827-1849.
26) Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C. T. T.,1994. Complete stress-strain behavior of high-strength
concrete under compression. Mag. Concrete Res., 46(169), 301-312.
27) Wee, T. H., Chin, M. S., and Mansur, M. A.,1996. Stress-strain relationship of high
strength concrete in compression. J. Mater. Civ.Eng., 8(2), 70-76.
28) Hoshikuma, J., Kazuhiko, K., Kazuhiko, N., and Taylor, A. W.,1996. A model for
confinement effect on stress-strain relation of reinforced concrete columns for
seismic design. Proc., 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier
Science, London.
29) B. Doran a, H.O. Koksal, and T. Turgay,2009. Nonlinear finite element modeling of
rectangular/square concrete columns confined with FRP. Material and design.
30) ACI Committee 440,2002. Design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening concrete structures (ACI 440.2R-02), Farmington Hills
(MI):American Concrete Institute.
31) Attard, M. M., and Setunge, S., 1996. Stress-strain relationship of confined and
unconfined concrete. ACI Mater. J., 93(5), 432-442.
32) Ansari, F., and Li, Q. ,1998. High-strength concrete subjected to triaxial
compression. ACI Mater. J., 95(6), 747-755.
33) Candappa, D. ,2000. The constitutive behavior of high strength concrete under
lateral confinement. PhD thesis, Monash Univ., Clayton,VIC, Australia.
34) Imran, I., and Pantazopoulou, S. J.,1996. Experimental study of plain concrete
under triaxial stress. ACI Mater. J., 93(6), 589-601.
35) Montoya, E.,2003. Behavior and analysis of confined concrete. Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Toronto, Toronto.
36) Oral,Buyukozturk, 1977. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structure.
Computers & Structures, Vol.7, 149-156.
37) MSC.Marc Documentation, 2005. Volume A Theory and User Information. MSC

Material Properties
32
Software.
38) T. C. Y. Liu, A. H. Nilson and F. O. Slate, 1972. Stress-strain response and fracture
of concrete in uniaxial and biaxial compression. ACZ J., Proc. 69(5) 291-295.
39) H. Kupfer, H. K. Hilsdorf and H. Rusch, 1969. Behavior of concrete under biaxial
stresses. ACZ .Z. Pmt. 66(8), 656-666.
40) Ollgaard JG, Slutter RG, Fisher JW,1971. Shear strength of connectors in
lightweight and normaldensity concrete. AISC Engng, 5564.
41) Oehlers DJ, Coughlan CG., 1986. The shear stiffness of stud shear connectors in
composite beams. J Construct Steel Res,73-84.
42) Oehlers DJ, Nguyen NT, Ahmed M, Bradford MA., 1997. Partial interaction in
composite steel and concrete beams with full shear connection. J Construct Steel
Res,41(2/3),235-48.
43) Oehlers DJ, Sved G.,1995. Composite beams with limited-slip-capacity shear
connectors. J Struct Eng.,32-38.
44) Ollgaard, J.G., Slutter, R.G., Fisher, J.W.,1971. Shear Strength of Stud Shear
Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete. AISC Engineering
Journal, 8, 55-64.
45) Johnson, R.P., and Molenstra, I.N., 1991. Partial Shear Connection in Composite
Beams for Buildings. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 91, 679-704.
46) Gunup Kwon et al, 2007. Strengthening Existing Non-Composite Steel Bridge
Girders Using Post-Installed Shear Connectors. CTR Technical Report: 0-4124-1.
47) Jun,Okada,Teruhiko,Yoda, and Jean-paul, Lebet,2006. A study of the grouped
arrangements of stud connectors on shear strength behavior. Structural
Eng./Earthquake Eng.,JSCE,23(1),75-89.
48) Moy SSJ, Xiao RY, Lilistone D, 1998. Tests for British steel on the shear strength of
the studs used in the Bi-steel system. Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Southampton.
49) Clubley SK,Moy SSJ, Xiao RY,2003. Shear strength of steel-concrete-steel
composite panels, Part I-testing and numerical modelling. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 59(6),781-94.
50) M. Xie, N. Foundoukosb, J.C. Chapmanb,2004. Experimental and numerical

33
investigation on the shear behaviour of friction-welded barplate connections
embedded in concrete. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,61, 625-649.
51) Bowerman HG, Gough MS, King CM, 1999. Bi-steel design and construction guide.
Scunthorpe (London), British Steel Ltd.
52) AISC. 1993. Load and resistance factor design specifications for structural steel
buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,Illinois.
53) Amit Pashan,2006. Behaviour of channel shear connectors: Push-out tests. Master
thesis, Saskatchewan Univ., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

35
Chapter 3. Test Program of Closed-Composite Segment

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The test program involved the testing of 10 Closed-composite segments without shear
studs, and 6 Closed-composite segments with shear studs. For Closed-composite
segments, this paper is to investigate the deflection behavior, load carrying capacity,
relative slip, and the confinement effect of steel tube, when changing the thickness of
the steel plates, dimension of headed shear studs, and the width and length of composite
segments.

3.2 TEST PROGRAM

3.2.1 Test Specimens
Sixteen steel-mortar filled composite segment models are designed, manufactured,
and air-cured. The constructing process of the Closed-composite segments is shown in
Fig.3.1.

(a) Welding shear studs (b) Installing strain gauges (c) Welding steel tube

(d) Mixing material infill (e) Casting mortar
Fig.3.1 Manufacturing process of Closed-composite segment

Test Program of Closed-Composite Segment
36
Table 3.1. Details of Closed-segment specimens
Dimension Thickness Stud arrangement
Skin
plate
Main
girder
Joint
plate
spacing Specimen
Width
B(mm)
Length
L(mm)
Height
H(mm)
t
s
(mm) t
m
(mm) t
j
(mm)
Welded
position
Shank
diameter
d(mm)
S
1
(mm) S
2
(mm)
Case1 200 900 100 4.5 4.5 4.5 No stud
Case2 200 900 100 4.5 4.5 3.2 No stud
Case3 200 900 100 4.5 4.5 6.0 No stud
Case4 200 900 100 4.5 3.2 4.5 No stud
Case5 200 900 100 4.5 6.0 4.5 No stud
Case6 200 900 100 3.2 4.5 4.5 No stud
Case7 200 900 100 6.0 4.5 4.5 No stud
Case8 200 900 100 4.0 4.5 -- No stud
Case9 300 900 100 3.2 6.0 6.0 No stud
Case10 500 900 100 4.5 4.5 4.5 No stud
Case11 200 900 100 4.5 4.5 4.5 Skin plate 4.0 65 37.5
Case12 300 900 100 3.2 6.0 6.0 Skin plate 8.0 60 60
Case13 300 900 100 3.2 6.0 -- Skin plate 8.0 60 60
Case14 500 900 100 4.5 4.5 4.5 Skin plate 4.0 65 37.5
Case15 750 2100 150 4.5 9.0 9.0 Skin plate 13.0 150 100
Case16 1000 2100 150 4.5 9.0 9.0 Skin plate 13.0 150 150

B
t
s
tj
s
2
B
H
L
Skin plate
L
H
tj
s
1
A
A
B
B
A-A section
B-B section
Joint plate
Joint plate
Main girder
Skin plate Stud
Main girder
Mortar
T
d D
Details of stud
Welded
Case
d D T
Case11,14
Case12,13
Case15,16
4.0
8.0
13.0
11.0
16.0
22.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
30.0
43.0
50.0

Fig.3.2 Detail of Closed-composite segment specimens [1]

The details of the Closed-composite segment specimens are shown in Table3.1 and
Fig.3.2. The compressive strength of the mortar at 28 days was determined by testing
standard 10050 mm mortar cylinders according to Japanese Concrete Specification.
Tensile and yield strengths of the structural steel were obtained by tensional testing

37
according to Japanese Structural Steel Specification. Mechanical properties of structural
steel (SS400) and mortar are shown in Table 3.2. The mix proportions of the mortar are
as follows: Cement: 666.7 kg/m
3
; Water: 266.7 kg/m
3
; Sand: 1333.3 kg/m
3
(size: 5mm);
Cement/Water ratio: 40%; Water-reducing admixture: 666.7 cc/m
3
; Polymer dispersion:
2.22 kg/m
3
.

Table 3.2. Mechanical material properties for Closed-composite segment specimens
Structural steel (SS400) Mortar
Specimen
Yield strength
2
(N/mm )
y
f
Tensile strength
2
(N/mm )
s
f
Young modulus
2
(N/mm )
s
E
Compressive strength
2
(N/mm )
c
f
Young modulus
2
(N/mm )
c
E
Case1 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case2 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case3 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case4 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case5 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case6 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case7 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case8 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case9 333 423 2.0510
5
86.8 2.8510
4

Case10 303 430 2.2510
5
73.5 2.3610
4

Case11 325 448 2.010
5
52.3 2.4110
4

Case12 333 423 2.0510
5
86.8 2.8510
4

Case13 333 423 2.0510
5
86.8 2.8510
4

Case14 303 430 2.2510
5
73.5 2.3610
4

Case15 328 457 1.9510
5
77.6 2.5710
4

Case16 328 457 1.9510
5
77.6 2.5710
4

3.2.2 Test Setup
The simply supported Closed-composite segment specimens were loaded
symmetrically at four points within the span using a spreader beam. In these test
arrangements, such loading led, in theory, pure bending between applied forces of the
composite segment specimens can be obtained between the two loading points without
the presence of shear and axial forces. The Biaxial Structure Test Machine shown in Fig.
3.3 of 5000kN capability was used to apply monotonic load. The test specimens of

38
Case1 to Case8 were designed to study the effects of the thickness of the steel plates
changing on load carrying capacity; The test specimens of Case9 to Case14 were
designed to study the behavior of composite segments with/without shear studs; Case15,
Case16 were designed to study the interface relative slip between the skin plates and the
mortar infill shown in Fig.3.4. The applied load was measured and recorded using a
load cell. The loads were increased gradually with an increment of approximately 5kN
until the ultimate carrying capacities of Case1 to Case8, Case10, Case11, and Case13.
However, for Case9, Case12 to Case16, initial loading control was based on readings of
the load applied through the load cell, until the load-deflection response became
non-linear. Thereafter, loading was shifted to displacement control based on increments
of midspan deflection, until failure of the specimen was observed or until very large
deflections occurred. Resistance strain gauges were fixed to the inside/outside of the
steel tube and mortar infill. Finally, all the data records were made on data logger (data
acquisition equipment). Displacement transducers and Strain gauges located on key
points shown in Fig.3.5 and Fig.3.6 were used to measure strains and deflections
respectively.

(a) Biaxial Structure Test Machine (c) Data logger
Fig. 3.3 Biaxial Structure Test Machine and measuring instruments

(b) Switch box

39

The numbers 1,2,3 etc. denote the serial numbers of displacement transducer
:displacement transducer
Unit : mm
Case15,16
2
0
4 2 6
14
10
16
13
9
1
9
1
7
7
11
15
8
12
3 1 5
1
8
200 250 250 200
1
3
2
6 4
450 600
2100
8
7
600
9 5
450
Case1 to Case14
900
Fig.3.5 The arrangement of displacement transducers

100 200 300 200 100
900
C
L
Composite segment
Abutment
Spreader beam
Load cell
Teflon sheet
Rubber plate
P
Unitmm Test setup for Case1~Case14
Roller support
(hinged and movable)

(a)Test setup for Case1~Case14

Composite segment
2100
700
Unitmm
L
C
1
2
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
9
0
0
1
9
0
1
5
0
P
450 250 250 450
Abutment
Rubber plate
Teflon sheet
Rubber plate
Spreader beam
Test setup for Case15,Case16
(b)Test setup for Case15, Case16
Fig. 3.4 Test setup for Closed-composite segment specimens

40
4@25=100
4
@
3
3
=
1
2
2
4
@
1
8
=
7
2
3
4
3
4
1
8
.
5
4
@
5
0
=
2
0
0
1
8
.
5
2
0
0
900
3
5
1
13
15
17
19 30
24
26
28
4
2
6
25
23
21
27
29
12
16
14
18
20
39
41
40
38 37
52
8
10
11 22
7
9
33
35 31 32
36
34
200 250 250 200
Top skin plate
Bottom skin plate
Main girder
Main girder
The outside steel tube of Case1~Case8,Case11
Joint plate

(a) The strain gauges arrangement of Case1~Case8, Case11
11
12
13
14
3
5
6
4
1
2
7
8
9
10
77
76
75
74
64
63
66
65
67
68
69
70
71
73
72
15
16
17
18 26
25
24
23
30
29
28
27
22
21
20
19
90
91
92
93
82
83
84
85
81
80
79
78
89
88
87
86
105
106
107
108
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
104
103
102
101 31
32
33
34
35
36
39
40
37
38
59
60
61
62
55
56
57
58
44
45
46
42
43
41
The inside of top skin plate
A
D C
B D
A B
C
A B
C D
C D
A B
C'
B' A'
D' B'
C' D'
A'
48 52
54 50
53 49
51 47
900
180 270 270 180
3
0
0
1
0
0
900
900
180 270 270 180
3
0
0
1
5
4
5
6
0
4
5
6
0
6
0
888
A' B'
A' B'
888 888
C' D'
C' D'
900
180 270 270 180
3
0
0
900
180 270 270 180
3
0
0
1
5
4
5
6
0
6
0
6
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
2
7
3
7
Case9,Case12,Case13
The outside of top skin plate
The inside of main girder The outside of main girder
The inside of main girder The outside of main girder
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
The inside of bottom skin plate The outside of bottom skin plate
Strain gauges for steel
: Strain gauge for mortar
Unit: mm

(b) The strain gauges arrangement of Case9, Case12, and Case13

41
106
105
103
102
101
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
143
142
141
140
139
138
137
124
123
122
121
120
119
118 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
63 64 65 66 67
109
107
111
110
108
129
127
125
128
126
148
146
144
145
147
165 164 163 167 166
7
9
11
8
10
25
27
29
26
28
44
46
48
45
47
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
12
13
14
15
16
17
100
117
116
115
114
113
112
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
1
5
6
1
5
5
1
5
8
1
5
9
1
6
0
1
6
1
1
6
2
6
1
6
2
6
0
5
9
5
8
5
7
5
6
4
@
1
8
=
7
2
1
8
.
5
1
8
.
5
1
2
@
4
0
=
4
8
0
6
@
7
5
=
4
5
0
2
5
2
5
4@18=72
18.5 18.5
180 250
5
0
0
900
104
1
0
20 20
The outside of steel tube of Case10,Case14
Main girder
The outside of bottom skin plate
Main girder
J
o
i
n
t

p
l
a
t
e
J
o
i
n
t

p
l
a
t
e
1
8
.
5
1
8
.
5
20
4
@
1
8
=
7
2
Strain gauges for steel Unit: mm

(c) The strain gauges arrangement of Case10, Case14

42
A B
C D
C' D'
A' B'
5
0
@
1
8
=
9
0
0
45.5
5
0
@
9
=
4
5
0
4
5
.5
5
0
@
9
=
4
5
0
45.5
5
0
@
1
2
=
6
0
0
3
7
.5
@
4
=
1
5
0
3
7
.
5
@
4
=
1
5
0
18@2=36
18@2=36
2
5
450 600 600 450

2100
D'
B'
146
(24)
147
(25)
148
(26)
D
B
1
9
5
.5
1
5
0
@
2
=
3
0
0
134
(12)
135
(13)
136
(14)
131
(9)
132
(10)
133
(11)
75
1
2
0
.5
C'
140
(18)
141
(19)
142
(20)
143
(21)
144
(22)
145
(23)
1
2
0
.5
1
5
0
@
5
=
7
5
0
149
(27)
150
(28)
151
(29)
A'
137
(15)
138
(16)
139
(17)
123
(1)
124
(2)
125
(3)
126
(4)
127
(5)
128
(6)
129
(7)
130
(8)
1
9
5
.5
1
5
0
@
4
=
6
0
0
1
9
5
.5
1
5
0
@
2
=
3
0
0
C
A
1
9
5
.5
2100
A
A'
C'
C
15@6=90
20@3=60
B
B'
D'
D
The numbers 1,2,3 etc. denote the serial numbers of strain gauges
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
4
5
.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
115
117
119
121
116
118
120
122
99
101
103
105
100
102
104
106
80
81
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
78
79
82
42
43
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
40
45
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
44
76
95
93
92
91
94
96
96
98
111
109
108
107
110
112
113
114
The outside of main girder
The inside of bottom skin plate
Strain gauges Grouting hole Shear studs
The arragement of Case16
D'
B'
B
149
(24)
150
(25)
151
(26)
D
1
0
0
@
2
=
2
0
0
139
(14)
138
(13)
137
12
142
17
141
(16)
140
(15)
1
7
0
.5
152
(27)
153
(28)
154
(29)
143
(18)
144
(19)
145
(20)
146
(21)
147
(22)
148
(23)
1
0
0
@
5
=
5
0
0
C'
A'
A
130
5
129
4
128
(3)
127
(2)
126
(1)
1
0
0
@
4
=
4
0
0
133
8
132
(7)
131
(6)
1
7
0
.5
136
(11)
135
(10)
134
(9)
C
A
7
5
0
C'
7
5
0
A'
C
1
0
0
/
3
@
1
0
=
3
3
3
20@240
25@4100
1
0
0
/
3
@
1
2
=
4
0
0
20@240
25@4100
D'
B'
B
1
0
0
/
3
@
2
0
=
6
6
6
1
0
0
/
3
@
1
0
=
3
3
3
D
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3
7
.
5
3
7
.
5
3
7
.
5
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
33
75 75
A'
A
B'
B
1
5
0
118
120
122
124
119
121
123
125
102
104
106
108
103
105
107
109
2100
A
A' 15@6=90
20@3=60
B
B'
1
5
098
96
95
94
97
99
100
101
114
112
111
110
113
115
116
117
69
70
73
75
77
79
80
81
76
78
71
72
74
44
45
48
50
52
54
55
56
51
53
46
47
49
57
58
63
65
67
68
64
66
59
62
61
60
86
85
84
89
91
93
94
90
92
85
88
87
86
3
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
The inside of bottom skin plate
The numbers 1,2,3 etc. denote the serial numbers of strain gauges
Strain gauges Grouting hole Shear studs
The arragement of Case15

(d) The strain gauges arrangement of Case15, Case16
Fig.3.6 The strain gauges arrangement of Closed-composite segment specimens

43
3.3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table3.3 gives the values of the ultimate load, the midspan deflections at failure, and
the midspan yield deflections for each of the composite segment specimens. The
midspan yield deflections were taken as the average deflections (measured from the
displacement transducers located at the midspan) corresponding to yield loads equal to
about 80% of the ultimate loads. Table3.3 shows that the deflections of the composite
segments with shear studs are equal to about 70% to 80% of the ultimate deflections
after yielding. The yield load is defined as the load at the intersection of the two lines,
representing the kink in the curve where an abrupt change in stiffness occurs. This
bilinear approximation of the yield load shown in Fig.3.7 has been used since the 1970s.

Deflection(mm)
P
max
T
a
n
g
e
n
t

l
i
n
e
1
T
a
n
g
e
n
t

l
i
n
e
2
P
yield
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

Fig.3.7. The method for determining the yield load from load-deformation curves

44
Table 3.3. Experimental results of Closed-composite segment specimens
Specimen
Yield load
(kN)
Ultimate load
(kN)
Yield load
/Ultimate load
(%)
Yield
deflection
y
(mm)
Deflection at
failure
u
(mm)
( ) /
u y u

(%)
Case1 380 470 80.9 3.35 8.19 59.1
Case2 375 450 83.3 3.50 7.39 52.6
Case3 380 470 80.9 3.35 9.62 65.2
Case4 315 425 74.1 3.0 8.74 65.7
Case5 415 500 83.0 3.49 9.31 62.5
Case6 298 370 80.5 3.16 7.78 59.3
Case7 410 530 77.4 3.28 10.74 69.5
Case8 260 345 75.4 2.87 10.87 73.6
Case9 250 380 65.7 2.88 16.6 82.7
Case10 570 705 80.9 3.9 13.0 70.0
Case11 400 505 79.2 3.01 11.3 73.4
Case12 352 427 82.4 3.89 27.9 86.1
Case13 304 425 71.6 3.53 20.4 82.7
Case14 620 790 78.5 3.52 20.2 82.6
Case15 1000 1222 81.8 10.48 35.7 70.6
Case16 1244 1533 81.1 12.06 39.1 69.2

3.3.1 Load-Deflection Response

Load and midspan deflection relationships for all tested specimens can be described
by the load-midspan deflection curves shown in Fig.3.8. It can be observed that the
load-midspan deflection curves are linear up to a load corresponding to the yield point.
After yielding, composite segments with shear studs represents very large deflection or
excellent ductility, and maintain load carrying capacity to achieve the ultimate
deflection. Fig.3.8 (a) shows the effect of thickness of steel tube on load carrying

45
capacity. It can be observed that the thickness of steel tube markedly affect the load
carrying capacities of the composite segments. Fig.3.8 (b), (c), and (d) show the effect
of shear studs on load carrying capacity. It can be observed that the load carrying
capacities of the composite segments with shear studs are larger than those of the
composite segments without shear studs, and composite structural members show
differently the degree of shear connection. From Fig.8 (e), it can be observed that the
joint plates as shear connectors markedly affect the load carrying capacities of the
composite segments without shear studs. However, the joint plates only affect the
deflection of the range from yield load to ultimate load, and not affect the load carrying
capacities of the composite segments with shear studs shown in Fig.8 (f). It can be
concluded that joint plate should be considered as shear connectors, and resist the shear
force occurring in the interface between steel tube and concrete infill with shear studs in
ultimate limit analysis.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Case3
Case2
Case1
Case6
Case4
Case5
Case7
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Deflection at midspan(mm)
Yield point
Case1 (3.35,380)
Case2 (3.50,375)
Case3 (3.35,380)
Case4 (3.00,315)
Case5 (3.49,415)
Case6 (3.16,298)
Case7 (3.28,410)

(a) Load-deflection curves for Case1~Case7 without shear studs

46
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100mm L B H =
Case1 without shear studs
Case11 with shear studs
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Yield point
Case1 (3.35,380)
Case11 (3.01,400)

(b) Load-deflection curves for Case1 without shear studs and Case11 with shear studs

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 500 100mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Yield point
Case10 (3.9,570)
Case14 (3.52,620)

(c) Load-deflection curves for Case10 without shear studs and Case14 with shear studs

47
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
900 300 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Yield point
Case9 (2.88,250)
Case12 (3.89,352)

(d) Load-deflection curves for Case9 without shear studs and Case12 with shear studs

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100mm L B H =
Note: Case1 and Case8 without shear studs
Case1 with joint plates
Case8 without joint plates
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Yield point
Case1 (3.35,380)
Case8 (2.87,260)

(e) Load-deflection curves for Case1 with joint plates and Case8 without joint plates

48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Note: Case12 and Case13 with shear studs
900 300 100 L B H =
Case12 with joint plates
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Yield point
Case12 (3.89,352)
Case13 (3.89,352)

(f) Load-deflection curves for Case12 with joint plates and Case13 without joint plates

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Case16: 2100 1000 150 L B H =
Case15: 2100 750 150 L B H =
Case15
Case16
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Yield point
Case15 (10.48,1000)
Case16 (12.06,1244)

(g) Load-deflection curves for Case15 and Case16 with shear studs
Fig.3.8. Load-deflection curves at midspan

49
3.3.2 Strain Distribution
Fig.3.9 shows the measured strain distribution along the composite segment width
(with the origin at the center of the top skin plates) on the surfaces of the skin plates and
main girders. Such curves are displayed under different loading levels for the midspan
sections of the composite segment specimens. In general, the strain values on the
surfaces of the skin plates of the composite segments without shear studs are larger than
those of the composite segments with shear studs (Fig.3.9(a), (b)), and the top skin plate
of the composite segment without shear studs appears the local buckling(the strain
values on the surfaces of the top skin plate shift from negative to positive), it can be
concluded that no shear connection is provided between the mortar infill and the steel
plates, and the two components work independently resisting the moment. It is observed
from Fig.3.9(c) that the strain values on the skin plates increase and decrease repeatedly,
and the strain distribution shows markedly wavy change with increasing load. The strain
response is attributed to the shear lag effect of shear studs embedded in the skin plates.
Some values of the strains in the skin plates are larger than the values of the strains on
the edges of the main girders. The confinement effect of the main girders
on the deflection of the skin plates is greater. Based on testing investigation, it can be
-420 -350 -280 -210 -140 -70 0 70 140 210 280 350 420
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Stud position
200kN
150kN
100kN
Bottom skin plate Girder Bottom skin plate Girder
(mm) Distance from the middle of the width of the top skin plate

Top skin plate
M
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n

Case9
Case12
Case9
Case12
Case9
Case12

(a) Measured strain distribution on the surfaces of steel plates along the midspan section for
Case9 without shear studs and Case12 with shear studs

50
-630 -540 -450 -360 -270 -180 -90 0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630
-1500
-1200
-900
-600
-300
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
Stud position
400kN
200kN
100kN

Top skin plate
M
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n

Case10
Case14
Case10
Case14
Case10
Case14

(b) Measured strain distribution on the surfaces of steel plates along the midspan section for
Case10 without shear studs and Case14 with shear studs
-900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Stud position

Top skin plate
M
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n

Case15
40kN
200kN
400kN
600kN

(c) Measured strain distribution on the surfaces of steel plates along the midspan section for
Fig.3.9. Measured strain distribution on the surfaces of steel plates along the midspan section
observed that the shear studs and the main girders can affect not only the overall
response (e.g., shape of the load-deflection curve), but also local results (e.g., strain
distributions along the skin plates).

51
-1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
100
80
60
40
20
0
Strain of mortar surface for typical applied load
Strain of mortar surface
900 200 100mm L B H =
100kN
150kN
250kN
350kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

-1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
100
80
60
40
20
0
900 200 100mm L B H =
100kN
150kN
250kN
350kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge
Microstrain

-2000-1500-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
100
80
60
40
20
0
100kN
300kN
400kN
500kN
600kN
900 500 100mm L B H =

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

-2000-1500-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
100
80
60
40
20
0
900 500 100mm L B H =
100kN
300kN
500kN
600kN
700kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

-1800 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2100 750 150mm L B H =

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

200kN
400kN
600kN
800kN
1000kN
-3000-2400-1800-1200 -600 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2100 1000 150mm L B H =
400kN
700kN
1100kN
1400kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

Fig.3.10. Measured strain distribution along the height of main girder and mortar surfaces

52
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
2100 750 150mm L B H =
Case15
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Microstrain
Strain on the top skin plate contacting mortar infill
Strain on mortar contacting the top skin plate
Relative slip strain on the interface of the top
skin plate and mortar infill

Fig.3.11. Load-Relative slip strain on interface between top skin plate and mortar infill
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
Compressive edge
2100 750 150mm L B H =
Case15
Microstrain
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
The average value of the all strain gauages on top skin plate
The strain value of the compressive edge of main girder
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
Tensional edge
2100 750 150mm L B H =
Case15
The average value of all strain gauages on bottom skin plate
The strain value of the tensional edge of main girder
Microstrain
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

Fig.3.12. Load-strain curves on skin plates and the edge of main girders [2]
Fig.3.10 shows the typical applied load-strain curves of the test data for main girders
and mortar surfaces. The strain values for the main girders were taken as the average
strain values (from the measured strain based on the symmetrically-installed strain
gauges on the midspan main girders). It can be observed that the plane sections remain
plane after loading, because the fitted curves of the strain distribution along the height
main girder is linear in elastic and plastic ranges, and relative strain occurs on interface
between the skin plates and mortar infill. Fig.3.11 shows the applied load-relative strain
curves of the test data for interface between the top skin plate and mortar infill. It can be
observed that the relative strain occurs on interface between the skin plate and mortar
infill, and increases as the applied load increases. The strain values for the skin plates
were taken as the average strain values (from the measured strain based on the installed

53
strain gauges on the inside and outside of skin plates along the width of the specimen)
shown in Fig.3.12. The strain values of the edges of main girders are about equal to the
average values of the skin plate. Therefore, it can be concluded that the shear studs
installed in compressive and tensional sides resist the compressive resultant force
occurring on the compressive main girder and top skin plate, and on the tensional
resultant force occurring on the tensional main girder and bottom skin plate,
respectively.

3.3.3 Sensitivity Study
An investigation was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the overall response of
Closed-composite segments (represented by ultimate loads) to likely variations in the
thicknesses of the steel plates. Composite segment specimens of Case1 to Case7 without
shear studs described in Table3.1 were used for the sensitivity study. The dimension of
the compared standard case (Case1) is LWH = 900200100 mm; all the thicknesses
of skin plates, main girders, and joint plates are 4.5 mm. If the ratios of ultimate
carrying capacity are defined as the ratios of the ultimate carrying capacities of Case2,
Case3, etc to the ultimate carrying capacity of Case1, the relationship of the ratio of
ultimate carrying capacity and percentage change of the thicknesses of the steel plates is
shown in Fig.3.13. It can be observed that the thicknesses of the skin plates obviously
affect the ultimate carrying capacities of the Closed-composite segments.
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
The ultimate carrying capacity of Case2~Case7
ui
: P
The ultimate carrying capacity of standard case(Case1)
us
: P
(%) :
ui
us
(%) ( 2,3,4,5,6,7)
P
i
P
= =
Ratio of the ultimate carrying capacity(%)

R
a
t
i
o

o
f

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Percentage change of the thicknesses of steel plates(%)
Thicknesses of skin plates
Thicknesses of main girders
Thicknesses of joint plates

Fig.3.13. Effects of the changing thicknesses of steel tube on ultimate carrying capacity

54
3.3.4 Failure Modes
The failure modes of the composite segments with/without shear studs are shown in
Fig.3.14. The local buckling failure mode of the composite segments with shear studs
(Fig.3.14 (a)) behaves differently from that of the composite segments without shear
studs(Fig. 3.14 (b)), where the top skin plate buckled between two adjacent rows of
shear studs. Local buckling failure causes the top skin plate to separate from the mortar
infill. Fig. 3.14 (c) shows the mortar infill crushing failure after the buckled top skin
plate has been removed from the surface to reveal the mortar infill. It can be observed
from Fig. 3.14 (c) that the failure of mortar infill in compression is crushing when
reaching its ultimate strain.

(a) Local buckling of specimen with studs (b) Local buckling of specimen without studs

(c) Mortar infill crushing failure
Fig.3.14. Failure modes of the Closed-composite segment specimens

55
3.4. SUMMARY

Experimental studies on the mechanical behavior of Closed-composite segments
with/without shear studs or ribs were carried out under pure bending load. The main
conclusions are obtained as follows:
(1) The failure modes of the Closed-composite segments with shear studs are the top
skin plate buckled between two adjacent rows of shear studs, and concrete infill
crushing after the buckled top skin plate.
(2) For the Closed-composite segments, local buckling of skin plate in compression
before yielding can be achieved by limiting the ratio of shear stud spacing/plate
thickness to constant.
(3) The relative slip occurs at interface between concrete infill and the steel tube for
Closed-composite segment.
(4) Considering the confinement effect by the adjacent segment ring on longitudinal
direction in actual tunnel, and the small deflection on transversal direction, the effect
of this deflection can be neglected in actual design of segment.
(5) The joint plates only affect the deflection of the range from yield load to ultimate
load, and not affect the load carrying capacities of the composite segments with
shear studs. It can be concluded that joint plate should be considered as shear
connectors, and resist the shear force occurring in the interface between steel tube
and concrete infill with shear studs in ultimate limit analysis.
(6) The strain distribution in the skin plates is non-uniformly distributed along the width.
The strain response is attributed to the shear lag effect. Therefore, the effective
width of the skin plates should be defined based on stress gradient.
(7) The plane sections remain plane after loading, because the strain distribution along
the height main girder is linear.

56
3.5. REFERENCES

1) Wenjun, Zhang, Atsushi, Koizumi, 2007.Relative slip of interface between concrete
and steel of closed-composite segment. Modern tunnelling technology. pp40-45. (In
Japanese)
2) Wenjun, Zhang, Atsushi, Koizumi, 2009. Flexural behavior of composite segment.
Journal of JSCE. Vol.65,No2,246-263. (In Japanese)

57
Chapter 4. FEM Analysis of Closed-Composite Segment

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Using the finite element method to involve complex structures or interactions among
structural members has been one of the motivations for applying this method in this
study. Comparing with simple mechanical models, finite element models may offer
more accurate analyses because of the ability to model the material and interaction of
each member of the composite segment in more detail. Further, the response history of
virtually any part of the model can be obtained. In this method, element and material
model types play an important role for the entire analysis. Selection of element and
material model types for the analysis is based on the structural system and any specific
need or emphasis of the study.
In this study, the MSC.Marc software package is used to simulate the mechanical
behavior of the Closed-composite segments, and the material properties of each
composite structural member described in Chapter 3 are used in the following finite
element analysis.

4.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

4.2.1 Structure Model
Only one quarter of each the Closed-composite segment specimens are modeled
taking advantage of symmetry in two mutually perpendicular vertical planes shown in
Fig4.1. Symmetric boundary conditions are applied at the two vertical planes of
symmetry. 8-Node 3D solid elements with tri-linear interpolation and nonlinear
interpolation are used to model steel plates and concrete, respectively. Discrete shear
studs are modeled using 3D beam elements with elastic-plastic behavior, which can
assume a slip bond between the shear studs and the surrounding mortar, because it is
observed that shear studs separate from the surrounding concrete in these
Closed-composite segment specimens. The cross-sectional area of the beam element

FEM Analysis of Closed-Composite Segment
58
was modified to make it equivalent in both strength and stiffness to the actual shear
studs in composite segment. The vertical and horizontal constraints are applied at the
bottom of the support along its centre line and mid-span section respectively. Vertical
load is distributed to all the nodes on top of the loading plate, with nodes at symmetry
plane getting half of the load at rest of the nodes.

Skin plate
v
e
iw
-1
v
e
iw
-
2
view-1 view-2
Skin plate
x
y
z
y
x
y
z
Full scale model
Main girder
Joint plate
Main girder
Mortar
Joint plate
Mortar
Skin plate
One quarter model considering symmetry of load and structure

Bottom skin plate(Soild element)
Shear stud(3D Beam element)
Top skin plate(Soild element)
Mortar (Soild element)
Interface
Interface

(a) Closed-composite segment (b) FEM model

(c) Boundary condition (f) Modeled shear studs
Fig.4.1 Finite element model of Closed-composite segment

59
4.2.2 Material Model

The material properties were obtained from elemental tests as presented in Chapter 2,
so material model used in finite element analysis are briefed in the following sections.
Incremental plastic flow theory is applied for the steel, shear connector and concrete
materials whereas nonlinear elasticity theory is applied for shear bond interaction. J
2
-
plasticity (von Mises) with associated flow rule is used for the steel material of the steel
tube and shear connector. In this case, the yield surface is independent of the hydrostatic
component of the stress vector as shown in Fig.4.2. The top skin plate buckling at the
maximum positive moment region was observed in some specimens, therefore, buckling
is assumed in the model. On the other hand, the concrete material is pressure dependent.
The general shape of failure surface for concrete material is illustrated in Fig.4.3.
MSC.Marc uses the Buyukozturk failure surface, a two-parameter model, for concrete
material (Buyukozturk 1975). This model is valid for the nonlinear response of concrete
under multi-axial compression.
Recent developments in the application of fracture mechanics to concrete in tension
enabled a fracture mechanics model to be used for the tensile portion of the concrete.
Concrete behavior in tension is assumed as linearly elastic. Concrete cracks, and softens
linearly until a strain of 0.005 where it completely loses its tensile load carrying
capacity, when principal stress in tension reaches tensile strength
t
f . Tensile softening
Failure surface
plane
2
Hydrostatic axis

Yield surface
Failure surface plane
2
Hydrostatic axis

Fig.4.2 Von Mises yield surface Fig.4.3 Concrete failure surface
in the principal stress space in the principal stress space

60
modulus is calculated based on this assumption. Tensile strength is adopted based on
Japanese Concrete Specification:
2/ 3
0.23( )
t c
f f
= (4.1)
where,
c
f

is uniaxial compressive strength of concrete(
2
N/mm ).
The reduction in shear modulus due to mortar cracking was defined as a function of
direct strain across the crack in the shear retention model. The shear modulus of cracked
mortar is defined as
e
G G = , where
e
G is elastic shear modulus of uncracked mortar;
is reduction factor, which is given by the following equation (Thevendran 1999[1])
max
max
max
(1 )
0
c
c
c
for
for
<
(4.2)
where
c
is direct strain across the crack. The shear retention model states that the shear
stiffness of open cracks reduces linearly to zero as the crack opening increases.
It is well known that confinement of concrete is effective in increasing its strength
and deformation capacity. It is generally agreed that the strength and stiffness of
confined concrete increases with the stiffness of the confining material as well as the
compressive strength of the unconfined concrete. Because of confinement effect, both
the unconfined and confined properties of concrete must be addressed. These properties
are briefed in the following.

(a) Constitutive models for unconfined concrete
The uniaxial stress-strain relation for concrete in compression is modeled using the
proposed equation by Carreira and Chu. This equation is given by:
1
c
c
c
c
c
c
f

=

+

(4.3)
where
c
2
N/mm );
c
c
f

is

61
3
1.55
c
f

= +

1
c
c
c
c
c
c
f

=

+

c

cu
tu
t
f
c
f

Fig.4.4 Stress-strain relation for unconfined concrete under uniaxial compression

2
N/mm );
c

is strain corresponding to
c
f

;
and as a function of uniaxial compressive strength of concrete
c
f

. Fig.4.4 shows the
stress-strain relation for concrete.

(b) Constitutive models for confined concrete
It is known that the increase in strength of confined concrete is a result of the
combination of lateral pressure and axial compression, which put the concrete in a
triaxial stress state. Based on the test results, various stress-strain models for confined
concrete have been proposed, such as Sheikh and Uzumeri(1982), Mander et al. (1988),
and Cusson and Paultre(1995)models, etc. Montoya et al. proposed a concrete
confinement model for steel tube confined concrete is found good to predict the shape
of stress-strain curve. The stress
c
c
using the following
formula:
2
1.0
cc
c
c c
cc cc
f
A B C
f f

=

+ +

(4.4)
where
d
A k = ;
sec
2
A
B
E
= ;
2
sec
A
C
E
= ; and
sec
cc
cc
f
E

d
k is given by the
following formula:

62
2
80
1
4
cc
d
cc c
f
k

=

(4.5)
where
80 c
cc
0.80 f ,and given by the
following formula:
( )
80 co
1.5 89.5 0.6
l
c c
c
f
f
f

= +

(4.6)
Peak axial stress for confined concrete
cc
f is defined as
cc
c t
1
l
f f
f f

= +

(4.7)
( )
0.21
c
t
1.25 1 0.062
l
f
f
f

= +

(4.8)
t
f is given by Eq.(4.1).
The effective lateral pressure
l
f

acting on the concrete due to the steel jacket can be
calculated as follows:
l s l
f k f
= (4.9)
where
s
confined area to the total cross section area and
l
f is the possible maximum confining
pressure that exerted by steel jacket on the concrete core.
s
k and
l
f can be calculated by
Eqs.(2.8) and (2.6) respectively.

4.3 ANALYSIS METHOD

Among the three sources of nonlinearity: material, geometrical and boundary
(contact), the three are applicable to composite segment problems in this study. FEA is
an approximate technique, and there exist many methods to solve the basic equations. In
nonlinear FEA, two popular incremental equilibrium equations are: full Newton

63
-Raphson and modified Newton-Raphson. The full Newton-Raphson (N-R) method
assembles and solves the stiffness matrix for every iteration process. It has quadratic
convergence properties, which means in subsequent iterations the relative error
decreases quadratically. It gives good results for most nonlinear. Therefore, the full
Newton-Raphson (N-R) method is used in this study. The integration scheme used to
trace the equilibrium path is the arc-length method. The loading achieved by applying a
fixed displacement is distributed to all the nodes on top of the loading plate, and
convergence tolerance on displacement is defined as 0.1. Boundary (contact) and
geometrical nonlinearities are presented as the following sections.

4.3.1 Contact Analysis (Boundary Nonlinearity)
Analysis is performed for slip condition to investigate the interface between
concrete and steel tube. A contact analysis possesses a provision for slip, and can be
used to simulate the slip between concrete and steel tube. Separate nodes are assigned
for concrete and steel tube at the same location. Frication is also considered in the
contact analysis for studying the interface between concrete and steel tube. In
MSC.Marc, the two available friction models are referred to in the documentation [2] as
the Coulomb model and the Stick-Slip model. The names are unfortunate since both
are approximate implementations of the theoretical Coulomb model. The following
sections briefly describe the implementation of these two friction models in MSC.Marc.
Full details can be found in [2]. Contact is a nonlinear boundary value problem. During
contact, mechanical loads and perhaps heat are transmitted across the area of contact. If
friction is present, shear forces are also transmitted. In MSC.Marc, areas of potential
contact do not need to be known prior to the analysis.

(a) Continuous Friction Model
The Coulomb friction law is expressed in the MSC.Marc documentation [1] as:
fr n
t (4.10)
where
n
is the magnitude of the normal stress,
fr
is the tangential (friction) stress

64
vector, is the friction coefficient, t is the tangential unit vector in the direction of
the relative velocity
( )
r r
t v / v = and
r
v is the relative sliding velocity. Notations in
bold face in Eq.(4.10) indicate vectors while a dot is used to indicate the scalar product
of two vectors. Clearly, this equation results in a discontinuity in
fr
when the relative
velocity
r
v changes sign. This will cause numerical convergence difficulties, so in the
Continuous friction model, the discontinuity in Eq. (4.10) is removed by the use of a
smoothing arctangent function, resulting in:
r
fr n
V
2 v
arctan t
R

(4.10)
where
V
R is the value of the relative sliding velocity when sliding occurs. As noted by
Winistrfer and Mottram [3], this parameter is a nonphysical quantity introduced as a
part of the approximate Continuous implementation. Nevertheless, it is an important
parameter in determining how closely the model represents the discontinuity in the
Coulomb model. As can be seen in Fig.4.5, for large values of
V
R the model fails to
represent the step function behavior accurately and results in a reduced effective friction
force, while a very small value results in a very good representation, but like the step
function, can result in nonconvergence. Note that no distinction is made between static
and kinetic friction coefficients in this model.

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Equation(4.10)
2
n
5(N/mm ) =
0.3 =
r
v
fr
R
v
=0.01
R
v
=0.1
R
v
=1
R
v
=10

Fig.4.5 MSC.Marc Continuous friction model through Eq. (4.10).

65
(b) Stick-Slip Friction Model
Similar to the procedures outlined in [3], the Stick-Slip model attempts to capture the
discontinuity in the idealized Coulomb model through a series of conditional statements.
The model is based on a force implementation of the Coulomb law:
t n
f f t (4.11)
where
t
f is the tangential or friction force and
n
f is the magnitude of the normal
force. For the friction coefficient, the user supplies a kinetic coefficient
k
and an
overshoot parameter (typically >1); a static coefficient
s
is then deduced from:
s
k
= (4.11)
The program flow as provided in [1] is shown schematically in Fig.4.6, in which
t
u
represents the tangential relative displacement between two contacted components. A
node is considered sticking until the tangential (friction) force reaches a critical value
n
f . It then slips in the same direction until
t
u either changes sign or becomes very
small (signifying that sliding has either changed direction or ceased). It can be seen that
before a node is allowed to change the direction of its slip, it must pass through a
sticking phase, to test again if the tangential force exceeds the critical value
n
f . The
procedure also requires testing to determine if the tangential force value has converged:
t
p
t
f
1 1
f
e e + (4.12)
where
p
t
f is the tangential force in the previous iteration and e is a convergence
tolerance which can be user-defined. To apply the Stick-Slip model, the following
parameters need to be supplied:
, the parameter relating the static and kinetic friction coefficients (default
value=1.05; can be user-defined)
, the relative change in displacement tolerance above which a node is considered
slipping (default value=10
-6
; can be user-defined)
, the small number set so that is very small, (value=10
-6
; cannot be
user-defined); is the relative change in displacement tolerance below which
motion is assumed to have ceased forcing a change from slipping to sticking mode
e, convergence tolerance on the tangential force (default=0.05; can be user-defined).

66
t s n
f f
t s n
f f >
t
u or if
t
u > and
t t
f 0 u >
t
u > and
t t
f 0 u <
t
0 u
Remain in sticking mode if:
Change to slipping mode if:
Remain in slipping mode if:
Change to sticking mode if:
No
Yes
Determine soulution
of next iteration
Assume sticking
mode
Assume slipping
mode
Initial contact

Fig.4.6 Stick-Slip friction procedure in MSC.Marc (from [1])

(c) Bond-Slip Model for Steel Reinforcement
In general, a reinforced concrete member is subjected to axial tensile force. When the
stress attains the tensile strength of concrete, the first crack appears and the relative slip
occurs between steel reinforcement and surrounding concrete. The following
constitutive relation between the bond stress
v
and the slip v is used in Hanswilles
theory [4]:
( ) ( )
N
v cu
x Af v x = (4.13)
where A and N are constants and
cu
f is the cubic compressive strength of concrete, and
x is the longitudinal coordinate of the member. Note that N is not a non-dimensional
parameter but dimensional one. If the unit of length is cm, then Hanswille[3] reported
that A=0.58 and N=0.3 are standard values for a deformed bar.
This feature of contact analysis allows for the automated solution of problems where
contact occurs between deformable and deformable/rigid bodies. It does not require
special elements to be placed at the points of contact. This contact algorithm
automatically detects nodes entering contact and generates the appropriate constraints to
insure no penetration occurs and maintains compatibility of displacements across
touching surfaces.

67
4.3.2 Buckling Analysis (Geometrical Nonlinearity)
In MSC.Marc[1], Buckling analysis allows the user to determine at what load the
structure will collapse. It can detect the buckling of a structure when the structures
stiffness matrix approaches a singular value. It can extract the eigenvalue in a linear
analysis to obtain the linear buckling load. It can also perform eigenvalue analysis for
buckling load in a nonlinear problem based on the incremental stiffness matrices.
The buckling option estimates the maximum load that can be applied to a
geometrically nonlinear structure before instability sets in. To activate the buckling
option in the program, use the parameter BUCKLE. If a nonlinear buckling analysis is
performed, also use the parameter LARGE DISP.
Use the history definition option BUCKLE to input control tolerances for buckling
load estimation (eigenvalue extraction by a power sweep or Lanczos method). It can
estimate the buckling load after every load increment. The BUCKLE INCREMENT
option can be used if a collapse load calculation is required at multiple increments.
The linear buckling load analysis is correct when take a very small load step in
increment zero, or make sure the solution has converged before buckling load analysis
(if multiple increments are taken). Linear buckling (after increment zero) can be done
without using the LARGE DISP parameter, in which case the restriction on the load step
size no longer applies. This value should be used with caution, as it is not conservative
in predicting the actual collapse of structures.
In a buckling problem that involves material nonlinearity (for example, plasticity),
the nonlinear problem must be solved incrementally. During the analysis, a failure to
converge in the iteration process or nonpositive definite stiffness signals the plastic
collapse.
For extremely nonlinear problems, the BUCKLE option cannot produce accurate
results. In that case, the history definition option AUTO INCREMENT allows automatic
load stepping in a quasi-static fashion for both geometric large displacement and
material (elastic-plastic) nonlinear problems. The option can handle elastic-plastic
snap-through phenomena. Therefore, the post-buckling behavior of structures can be
analyzed. Full details can be found in [1].

68
The buckling option solves the following eigenvalue problem by the inverse power
sweep method:
( ) , , 0
G
K K u u + =

(4.14)
where
G
K is assumed to be a linear function of the load increment to P cause
buckling.
The geometric stiffness used for the buckling load calculation is based on the stress
and displacement state change at the start of the last increment. However, the stress and
strain states are not updated during the buckling analysis. The buckling load is therefore
estimated by:
(beginning) P P + (4.15)
where for increments greater than 1, (beginning) P is the load applied at the beginning
of the increment prior to the buckling analyses, and is the value obtained by the
power sweep or Lanczos method.
The control tolerances for the inverse power sweep method are the maximum number
of iterations in the power sweep and the convergence tolerance. The power sweep
terminates when the difference between the eigenvalues in two consecutive sweeps
divided by the eigenvalue is less than the tolerance. The Lanczos method concludes
when the normalized difference between all eigenvalues satisfies the tolerance. The
maximum number of iterations and the tolerance are specified through the BUCKLE
history definition option.

4.4 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

All composite segment specimens were analyzed using 3D finite element analysis of
MSC.Marc software package. Parameters of Closed-segment specimens are described in
Chapter 3.2.1. Initially, a Closed-composite segment specimen was analyzed with an
assumption of perfect bond between steel tube and concrete infill. It can be seen that the
stiffness of analysis result is larger than that of the experimental result shown in Fig.4.7.

69
For instance, the stiffness from the analysis is about 150% of the experimental stiffness.
Therefore, contact analysis was used to study the interface interaction. Various
conditions of the interface were assumed. Analysis was performed for a range of friction
coefficient from 0(frictionless) to 0.3. Contact analysis with a friction coefficient of 0.1
is found to produce favorably comparable result shown in Fig.4.7. The analyzed results
of the composite segment specimens are compared with the experimental results in the
following sections.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2100 750 150mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case15
Exprimental result
Perfect bond analysis
Contact analysis (friction Coeff.0.2)

Fig.4.7 Load-deflection curves for Case15 Closed-segment specimen from different analyses

4.4.1 Load-Deflection Response

Among the analysis results, load vs. midspan deflection response histories of
Closed-segment specimens (with shear studs, without shear studs) are shown in Fig. 4.8.
In general, the analytical results agree with the experimental values. The analytical
model successfully described the interface slip behavior, because contact analysis (steel
tube and concrete infill) is used.

70

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case1
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case2
Exprimental result
FEM result

(a) Case1 without shear studs (b) Case2 without shear studs

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case3
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case4
Exprimental result
FEM result

(c) Case3 without shear studs (d) Case4 without shear studs

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case5
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case6
Exprimental result
FEM result

(e) Case5 without shear studs (f) Case6 without shear studs

71

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case7
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case8
Exprimental result
FEM result

(g) Case7 without shear studs (h) Case8 without shear studs

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
900 300 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case9
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 3 6 9 12 15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 500 100mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case10
Exprimental result
FEM result

(i) Case9 without shear studs (j) Case10 without shear studs

0 5 10 15 20 25
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case11
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
900 300 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case12
Exprimental result
FEM result

(k) Case11 with shear studs (l) Case12 with shear studs

72
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Note: Case13 with shear studs
900 300 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Exprimental result
FEM result

0 3 6 9 12 15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 500 100mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case14
Exprimental result
FEM result

(m) Case13 with shear studs (n) Case14 with shear studs

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2100 750 150mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case15
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2100 1000 150mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case16
Exprimental result
FEM result

(o) Case15 with shear studs (p) Case16 with shear studs
Fig.4.8 Load-deflection curves for tested Closed-segment specimens at midspan

Comparing the analyzed results with the experimental results, it can be seen that the
load-deflection curves from numerical analysis agree with the experimental load-
load-deflection curves shown in Fig. 4.8.
Figs.4.9 and 4.10 show the relative slip along the length of Closed-segment
specimens and load-relative slip relationship, respectively. It can be seen that the top
maximum relative slip between the top skin plate and concrete infill occurs in shear
region near the supports, and the bottom maximum relative slip occurs in concrete
cracking region. Therefore, the maximum slip depends on overall segment behavior and

73
that a significant contribution to slip increase comes from segment length, plasticization
of the most stressed zones and concrete infill cracks. The calculated maximum slip by
simplified assumption that shear forces along the connection is constant and
disregarding the portion close to the zero slip point where shear force decreases.
Meanwhile, the interface slip-load curves of composite segment are linear up to the
ultimate load shown in Fig.11. Therefore, it can be assumed that the shear stress at the
interface is proportional to the interface slip in analytical solutions.

Non-deform Deformed
(a) The deformation contour of the top interface

Non-deform Deformed
(b) The deformation contour of the bottom interface

74
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Case10 without shear stud
relative slip between top skin plate and concrete infill
relative slip between bottom skin plate and concrete infill
900 500 100mm L B H =
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

s
l
i
p

(
m
m
)
Half length of closed-composite segment(mm)

Fig.4.9 Relative slip distribution for Closed-segment specimens without shear studs of Case10

Non-deform Deformed
(a) The deformation contour of the top interface

Non-deform Deformed
(b) The deformation contour of the bottom interface

75
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Case14 with shear stud
relative slip between top skin plate and concrete infill
relative slip between bottom skin plate and concrete infill
900 500 100mm L B H =
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

s
l
i
p

(
m
m
)
Half length of closed-composite segment(mm)

Fig.4.10 Relative slip distribution for Closed-segment specimens with shear studs of Case14

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
300mm distance from midspan

L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Relative slip between the top skin plate and mortar infill (mm)
Nonlinear analysis(MSC.Marc)
Experiment(Case15 with shear studs)

Fig.4.11 Load-relative slip relationship for Closed-segment specimens with shear studs

4.4.2 Strain Distribution

Fig.4.12 shows the strain distributions at the measured locations. The strain
distributions of nonlinear analysis show good agreement with the experimental results
in main girders. The tendency of the strain distribution of nonlinear analysis shows
close agreement with the experimental value in the skin plates.

76
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
100
80
60
40
20
0
Line Plot
FEM result Experimental result
900 500 100mm L B H =
100kN
300kN
400kN
500kN
600kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
100
80
60
40
20
0
Line Plot
100kN
300kN
500kN
600kN
700kN
900 500 100mm L B H =

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Compressive edge

Microstrain

Fig.4.12 Strain distribution for main girder of Closed-composite segment specimens

4.4.3 Failure Modes
The local buckling failure of the Closed-composite segments without/with shear studs
is shown in Figs.4.13 and 4.14, respectively. The local buckling failure mode of the
composite segments with shear studs (Fig.4.14) behaves differently from that of the
composite segments without shear studs (Fig.4.13), where the top skin plate buckled
between two adjacent rows of shear studs. Local buckling failure causes the top skin
plate to separate from the concrete infill. The failure of concrete infill is shown in
Fig.15.

77

Fig.4.13 Local buckling of Closed-composite segment specimens without shear studs

Fig.4.14 Local buckling failure of Closed-composite segment specimens with shear studs

78

(a) Equivalent of cracking strain in tension (b) Longitudinal cracks in tension

(c) Plastic strain in compression (d) Concrete crushing in compression
Fig.4.15 Concrete infill failure of Closed-composite segment specimens

Figs.4.13 and 4.14 show images of the finite element model and the experiments for
Closed-composite segment specimens, with those deformed geometry. Figs.4.13, 4.14,
and 4.15 compare the failure pattern from composite segment specimens with the local
buckling and cracking results from the finite element model. It can be seen that there is
agreement between the local buckling distribution in the simulation and the local
buckling which appeared during the test. Even though the discrete nature of the concrete
cracks is not able to be captured by the smeared crack model, the crack pattern predicted
using the finite element model is similar to the observed pattern.

79
4.4.4 Contact Status
Contact status, contact force were carefully analyzed throughout the incremental
solution and the model incorporating a non-positive definite solution seemed to be of
satisfactory quality because no anomalies existed in the stresses or strains and contact
penetration was not evident. Fig.4.16 shows the images of contact status and contact
force of Closed-composite segment specimens.

(a) 600kN contact status (without shear studs)

(b) 600kN contact status (with shear studs)
Fig.4.16 Contact status of Closed-composite segment specimens

80
Fig.4.16 compares the contact status of Closed-composite segment specimens with
shear studs and without shear studs. It can be seen that contact area of Closed-composite
segment specimens with shear studs is larger than that of Closed-composite segment
specimens without shear studs. Therefore, shear studs prevent the steel tube to separate
from the concrete infill.

4.4.5 Stress Distribution
Fig.4.17 shows the distributions of the longitudinal stress (x-direction) in the skin
plates of Closed-composite segment specimens. It can be seen that apparent uniform
stress can be found at the skin plates, if neglecting stress concentration around shear
studs. Stress of top skin plate still increases as the applied load increases, when the top
skin plate buckled.

Fig.4.17 x-directional stress in skin plates of Closed-composite segment specimens

81
It can be seen from Fig.4.17 that the local buckling of the skin plate in compression
should be adopted in analysis and design of composite segment, according to different
degree of shear connection. The skin plate in tension can be assumed as the member of
full effective cross-section.

4.5 DISCUSSION OF CONTACT ANALYSIS

All Closed-composite segment specimens were analyzed with an assumption of
perfect bond between concrete infill and steel tube. Closed-composite segment
specimens were found too stiff from the analysis as compared to the experimental
results shown in Fig.4.18.Later, contact analysis was performed to study the interface
interaction, and Coulomb friction model was used in this study. Various conditions of
the interface were assumed. Analysis was performed for a range of friction coefficient
from 0 (frictionless) to 0.3. Contact analysis with a friction coefficient of 0.1, and the
relative sliding velocity (
V
R ) of default value 0.1 are found to produce favorably
comparable result shown in Figs.4.8 and 4.18.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2100 750 150mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case15
Exprimental result
Contact analysis (frictionless)

Fig.4.18 Effect of friction on the stiffness of Closed-composite segment specimens

82
4.6. SUMMARY

The proposed finite element model using MSC.Marc have been examined for their
ability to simulate the mechanical behavior of Closed-composite segments. The main
conclusions are obtained as follows:
(1) Contact analysis was found to be able to simulate the slip at the interface between
steel tube and concrete infill. For the composite segments with no axial load,
frictionless condition could simulate the load-deflection curves from the
experimental results. For the composite segments, a friction coefficient of 0.1
produced convincing results.
(2) Discrete shear studs modeled using 3D beam elements is able to simulate the
mechanical behavior of shear connectors.
(3) The effective width of the skin plate in compression should be adopted in analysis
and design of composite segment, according to different degree of shear connection.
The skin plate in tension can be assumed as the member of full effective
cross-section.

4.7. REFERENCES

1) Thevendran, V., et al,1999. Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite beams
curved in plan. Finite Elem. Anal. Design, 32(3), 125-139.
2) MSC.Marc Documentation, 2005. Volume A Theory and User Information. MSC
Software.
3) Winistrfer, A. and Mottram, J.T, 2001. Finite Element Analysis of Non-Laminated
Composite Pin-Loaded Straps for Civil Engineering, Journal of Composites Materials,
35(7):577601.
4) Hanswille, G,1986. Zur Ribreitenbeschrnkung bei Verbundtrgern, Technisch-
Weissenschaftliche Mitteilungen, Institut fr Konstruktiven Ingenieurbau
Ruhr-Universitt Bochum, Mittelilung Nr. 86-1.

83
Chapter 5. A Mechanical Model of Closed-Composite Segment

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In general, many underground structures are designed by the allowable stress design
method. In this method various indeterminate factors such as variations in material
properties, acting loads, precision of estimated design loads, analysis model and
structural calculation method etc., are simply assumed based on factors of safety.
Shield tunnel linings (hereinafter called as segment rings) consist of segments and
many connecting joints, and show complicated mechanical behavior under combined
loads. Meanwhile, it is difficult to precisely define the loads acting on segment rings due
to variation in construction conditions. Therefore, the allowable stress design method as
a simplified solution is still used in the design of segments for shield tunnel.
However, it is possible to predict the variations in acting loads and material properties
etc., because of the high technical developments of FEA and measuring method for the
last few years. Therefore, the allowable stress design method is not rational in economy,
because it is not able to directly evaluate the variations in material strength, member size,
and loads etc. On the contrary, the limit state design is able to evaluate the variations in
material strength, member size, and loads etc using factors of safety based on the
theories of probability, statistics, and reliability.
The limit state design requires the structure to satisfy two principal criteria: the
ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS). A limit state is a set of
performance criteria (e.g. vibration levels, deflection, strength, stability, buckling,
twisting, collapse) that must be met when the structure is subject to loads.
To satisfy the ultimate limit state, the structure must not collapse when subjected to
the peak design load for which it was designed. A structure is deemed to satisfy the
ultimate limit state criteria if all factored bending, shear, and tensile or compressive
stresses are below the factored resistance calculated for the section under consideration.
The limit state criteria can also be set in terms of stress rather than load. Thus the
structural element being analyzed (e.g. a beam or a column or other load carrying
element, such as walls) is shown to be safe when the factored loads are less than their

A Mechanical Model of Closed-Composite Segment
84
factored resistance.
To satisfy the serviceability limit state criteria, a structure must remain functional for
its intended use subject to service loads, and as such the structure must not cause
occupant discomfort under design life.
It is true problem that the limit state design is not currently used in the segment design
for shield tunnel. Therefore, one of the purposes of developing a mechanical model for
composite segment is to provide tools suitable for limit state design. The paper does not
address safety coefficients as its purpose is to underscore the phenomena involved in the
issue rather than measuring structural safety.
The proposed mechanical model analyzes the nonlinear behavior of a composite
segment with discrete partial shear connection under combined loads. This model is
based on the two fields mixed force-displacement equation with nonlinear constitutive
relationships for the components. The tension stiffening effect is taken into account by
using the relationship proposed in the CEB-FIB Model Code 90 [1]. The model
considers the concept of partial interaction allowing for the occurrence of slip at the
interface between steel tube and concrete infill, and local buckling of steel plate in
compression.

5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELING

The main ingredients of the proposed formulas consists of (a) fiber element formulas
for the composite segment; (b) nonlinear constitutive relationships for the component
materials; (c) model for steel embedded in concrete.

5.2.1 Basic Assumptions
Following the analytical method for the composite segment, it is assumed that:
(1) Throughout the depth of the cross-section, the strain distribution is linear, but a
discontinuity exists at the interface between steel tube and concrete infill due to
slip;
(2) No uplift or vertical separation occurs between steel tube and concrete infill;
therefore two parts of the composite section have the same rotation and the same

85
curvature;
(3) The post local buckling stress of the skin plate in compression is equal to the local
buckling strength;
(4) The shear connectors are considered to be discrete elements with uniform spacing.
The shear stress at the interface is proportional to the slip;
(5) The joint plates are considered as shear connectors;
(6) The member cross-section is subdivided into concrete and steel layers (fiber
element);
(7) When the reinforcement is in tension, all layers in the effective area
c,eff
A are
replaced by a single layer of steel embedded in the concrete.

5.2.2 Equilibrium and Compatibility Conditions
The following presents the three conditions of equilibrium which were necessary to
be satisfied at all cross-sections of composite segment at any load stage. The description
of the conditions is shown in Fig. 5.1.
(b) Shear connector element
(a) Forces on a composite segment
t
c
b b
s b b
s
t t
s
t t
s
z
x
c
V
c
T
c
M
t
t
t
b
b
dx
t
dx
b mb
V V +
b mb
M M +
b mb
T T +
t mt
V V +
t mt
T T +
t mt
M M +
b
dx
t
dx
( )
b mb b mb
d V V V V + + +
c c
d V V +
t mt t mt
d( ) T T T T + + +
t mt t mt
+d( ) M M M M + +
c c
+d M M
c c
d T T +
b mb b mb
+d( ) M M M M + +
b mb b mb
+d( ) T T T T + +
( )
t m t t mt
+ d V V V V + +
b mb
V V +
c
V
t mt
V V +
b mb
M M +
b mb
T T +
c
T
c
M
t mt
T T +
t mt
M M +
dx

Fig.5.1 Calculation model for the composite segment

86
(a) Interaction Force Equilibrium
Due to the discrete nature of the shear connectors, the internal forces (bending, axial
force, and shear force) distributions in the concrete infill and in the steel tube are now
discontinuous with jumps at each connector. To derive the equilibrium conditions for a
composite segment with discrete shear connectors, it needs to consider firstly the
equilibrium of an infinitesimal segment without shear connector and the equilibrium at
the cross-section containing a shear connector shown in Fig. 5.1 (b). The first set of
equilibrium equations, which apply between two consecutive connectors, is readily
obtained by expressing the equilibrium of a small element of the composite segment
with a finite length dx in the horizontal direction, and subjected to internal forces (Fig.
5.1(a)). The equilibrium conditions result in the following set of equations:
t mt
( )
t
d T T
dx

+
= (5.1)
b mb
( )
b
d T T
dx

+
=
(5.2)
( )
t mt t t t
t mt
( )
2 2
d M M t dx
V V
dx
+
+ + =
(5.3)
( )
b mb b b b
b mb
( )
2 2
d M M t dx
V V
dx
+
+ + =
(5.4)
( )
t b c cu cu
c t b c
2 2 2
dx dM t t
V t
dx

+

+ = + +

(5.5)

where
t
T is axial force carried by the top skin plate;
mt
T is axial force carried by the
main girders in compression;
b
T is axial force carried by the bottom skin plate;
mb
T is
axial force carried by the main girders in tension;
c
T is axial force carried by the
concrete infill;
t
M is moment carried by the top skin plate;
b
M is moment carried by the
bottom skin plate;
c
M is moment carried the concrete infill;
mt
M is moment carried by
the main girders in compression;
mb
M is moment carried by the main girders in tension;
t
V is shear force carried by the top skin plate;
c
V is shear force carried by the concrete
infill;
mt
V is shear force carried by the main girders in compression;
b
V is shear force
carried by the bottom skin plate;
mb
V is shear force carried by the main girders in

87
tension; is shear stress at interface between steel tube and concrete infill; is normal
stress at interface between steel tube and concrete infill;
t
t is thickness of the top skin
plate;
b
t is thickness of the bottom skin plate;
c
t is depth of the concrete infill; and
cu
t is
depth of the uncracked concrete infill.
Combining Eqs. (5.3), (5.4) and (5.5) yields
( ) ( )
t t cu b c b cu tube c
tube c
2
2 2
t t t t t dM dM
V V
dx dx
+ +
+ + + = + (5.6)
where
tube t mt mb b
M M M M M = + + + ; and
tube t mt mb b
V V V V V = + + + .

(b) Displacement Equilibrium
The curvature and the axial deformation at any section are related to the composite
segment displacements through kinematic relations. Under small displacements and
neglecting the relative transverse displacement between the steel tube and concrete infill,
these relationships are as follows (Fig.5.2):

( )
( )
t
d
d
t
u x
x
x
=
(5.7)
( )
( )
c
d
d
c
u x
x
x
=
(5.8)
( )
( )
b
d
d
b
u x
x
x
=
(5.9)
( )
( )
2
d
d
x
x
x
=
(5.10)
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
t c
c t
d
2 d
t
t t x
x u x u x
x
+
= +
(5.11)
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
b c
b c
d
2 d
b
t t x
x u x u x
x
+
= +
(5.12)
where u is the longitudinal displacement; is the transversal displacement,
t
is the
strain at the section centroid of the top skin plate;
c
is the strain at the section centroid
of the concrete;
b
is the strain at the section centroid of the bottom skin plate; and is
the curvature.

88
c
u
b
u
t
u
t
z
y
x

Fig.5.2 Kinematic of composite segment
t
c
u
h
t
h
b
t2
ct
t
t
t
b
t
c
Cracked concrete
t1
c1
b2
b1
c2
Uncracked concrete

Fig.5.3 Strain distribution of composite segment

Slip occurs at the interface between steel tube and concrete infill based on the
analysis of experimental data and FEM results in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 respectively.
Therefore, the rate of change of slip equals the strain difference at the interface and if
tensile strains are assumed positive, the following equations may be derived shown in
Fig.5.3.
The assumption (5) gives

89
t t
t t
t
s
n K
=
(5.13)
b b
b b
b
s
n K
=
(5.14)
where
t
is the top relative slip between the top skin plate and concrete infill;
b
is the
bottom relative slip between the top skin plate and concrete infill;
t
s is the longitudinal
spacing of the top shear studs;
b
s is the longitudinal spacing of the bottom shear studs;
t
n is number of the top shear studs in a group;
b
n is number of the top shear studs in a
group;
t
K is stiffness of a top shear stud; and
b
K is stiffness of a bottom shear stud.
Taking the derivative with respect to x in Eqs. (5.13) and (5.14) and then using Eqs.
(5.1) and (5.2) gives the differential equations. The relative slip strains at the interface
are calculated as
2
t t mt
t2 c1 2
t t
d d ( )
d d
t
st
s T T
x n K x

+
= = =
(5.15)
2
b b mb
c2 b1 2
b b
d d ( )
d d
b
sb
s T T
x n K x

+
= = =
(5.16)
Strains at the top skin plate (
t2
), the top of the concrete infill (
c1
), the bottom of
the concrete infill (
c2
), and the bottom skin plate (
b1
) are calculated from the bending
and axial force as
t mt t mt t
t2
t t m mt t t m mt
2
T T M T t
E A E A E I E I
+ +
= +

+ +

(5.17)
c c cu
c1
c cu c cu
2
T M t
E A E I
=
(5.18)

c c cu
c2 c
c cu c cu
2
T M t
t
E A E I

=

(5.19)

b mb b mb b
b1
b b m mb b b m mb
2
T T M M t
E A E A E I E I
+ +
=

+ +

(5.20)
where
t
A is area of the top skin plate section;
mt
A is area of main girder section in
compression;
cu
A is the uncracked concrete section;
b
A is the bottom skin plate section;
mb
A is main girder section in tension;
t
E is elastic modulus of the top skin plate;
m
E is
elastic modulus of main girders;
c
E is elastic modulus of the concrete infill;
b
E is

90
elastic modulus of the bottom skin plate;
t
I is moment of inertia of the top skin plate
section;
mt
I is moment of inertia of main girder section in compression;
cu
I is moment of
inertia of the uncracked concrete section;
mb
I is moment of inertia of main girder section
in tension; and
b
I is moment of inertia of the bottom skin plate section.
The assumption (3) gives
t mt b mb c
t t m mt b b m mb c cu
M T M M M
E I E I E I E I E I
+ +
= = =
+ +
(5.21)
Substituting Eqs. (5.17), (5.18), (5.19), (5.20), and (5.21) into Eqs.(5.15) and (5.16)
gives:
c t mt
t
c cu t t m mt
d
d
t
T T T
h
x E A E A E A

+
= +

+

(5.22)
b mb c
b
b b m mb c cu
d
d
b
T T T
h
x E A E A E A

+
=

+

(5.23)
where ( )
t t cu
/ 2 h t t = + ; and ( )
b c b cu
2 / 2 h t t t = + .
Taking the derivative with respect to x in Eqs. (5.22) and (5.23) and then giving the
following differential equations:
1 1 1 t t b
V
= + + (5.24)
2 2 2 b b t
V
= + + (5.25)
where
2
t t
1
t t t m mt c cu
1 1
t
n K h
s EI E A E A E A

= + +

+

;
b t b
1
b c cu
1
b
n K h h
s EI E A

=

;
2
b b
2
b b b m mb c cu
1 1
b
n K h
s EI E A E A E A

= + +

+

;
t b t
2
t c cu
1
t
n K h h
s EI E A

=

;
t
1
h
EI
=
;
b
2
h
EI
=
;
t t m mt b b m mb c cu
EI E I E I E I E I E I = + + + +
; and
tube c
V V V = +
.
The fourth order differential equations for the relative slips,
t
and
b
, are
( ) ( ) ( )
(4)
1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 t t t
V
+ + = + (5.26)

91
( ) ( ) ( )
(4)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 b b b
V
+ + = + (5.27)
Considering the boundary conditions of
0 0
0
t b
x x

= =
= = and
/ 2 / 2
0
t b
x L x L

= =
= = ,
The particular solutions of Eqs.(5.26) and (5.27) are as follows:
x
y
b b
L/2 L/2
L/2
L/2
L/2 L/2
q
P/2
P/2
P
(c) Uniformly distributed load
(b) Symmetrical two point loads
(a) Concentrate load at midspan

Fig.5.4 Load definitions

* 1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
t
V

+
=
;
* 1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
b
V

+
=
(5.28)
Defining
t b b
1 2 1 2 t t c cu t t m mt
t b t
1 2 1 2 b b
c cu b b m mb
/
/
t
b
h h h
n K s E A E A E A
C
h h h
n K s
E A E A E A

+
+
+ +
= =
+
+
+
+
,then
b t
C = , Eq.(5.24)
can be rewritten as:
2
1
0
t t
V
= (5.29)
where
2
1 1
C = .

92
For the load cases shown in Fig.5.4, solving Eq. (5.29) and using the boundary
conditions that
0 0
0
t b
x x

= =
= = ,
/ 2 / 2
0
t b
x L x L

= =
= = and / 2 V P = gives the relative
slip solutions
( )
( )
1
1
2 1
L x L x
t
L
P e e e
e

+
=
+
(5.30)
( )
( )
1
2
1
2 1
L x L x
b
L
P e e e
C
e

+
=
+
(5.31)
Correspondingly, the relative slip strain solutions are
( )
( )
1
2 1
x x L
st
L
P e e
e

=
+
(5.32)
( )
( )
1
2 1
x x L
sb
L
P e e
C
e

=
+
(5.33)
The additional curvature due to slip is calculated as
st sb
h

+

(5.34)
where
t b c
h h h h = + +

(c) Effect of Slip on Deflection
Considering the boundary conditions of
( )
/2 0 L = and
( )
/2 0 L = , the
additional deflection at midspan of composite segments can be calculated by integrating
the additional curvature along the length of the composite segment.
For the case of simply supported composite segments with a concentrate load shown
in Fig.5.4 (a), the additional deflections due to slip is derived as
( )
( )
1 1
1
(1 )
4 2 1
L
L
e
L
C P
h h e
= + +

+

(5.35)
Similarly, for symmetrical two point loads (total load=P) and uniformly distributed

93
load q shown in Figs. Fig.5.4 (b) and (c), the additional deflections due to slip are
derived, respectively, as
( )
2 1
2
(1 )
4 2 1
b L b
L
L b e e
C P
h h e

= + +

+

(5.36)
( )
2 ( ) / 2
3 1
2
2 1
(1 )
8 1
L L
L
L e e
C q
h h e

= + +

+

(5.37)
where
1
is additional deflection due to slip for concentrate load;
2
is additional
deflection due to slip for symmetrical two point loads;
3
is additional deflection due to
slip for uniformly distributed load.
The total deflection calculated from elastic deformation and slip-induced deflection
is

( )
( )
3
1 1
1
(1 )
48 4 2 1
L
L
e
PL L
C P
EI h h e
= + + +

+

(5.38)
( )
( )
2
1
2 3
12 2 2
2
(1 )
4 2 1
b L b
L
P L L
b b b L b
EI
L b e e
C P
h h e

= +

+ + +

+

(5.39)
( )
4 2 ( ) / 2
3 1
2
5 2 1
(1 )
384 8 1
L L
L
qL L e e
C q
EI h h e

= + + +

+

(5.40)

5.3 MATERIAL MODELS

The material behavior is described using explicit relationships between the total
stress and the total strain with appropriate loading/unloading conditions.

5.3.1 Concrete
(a) Unconfined Concrete
The stress-strain relationship suggested by Carreira and Chu [1] is adopted in

94
unconfined concrete for compression region. The initial portion of the ascending branch
is linearly elastic, but at about 30% of the ultimate strength, the presence of micro-cracks
leads to a nonlinear behavior, with a reduction in tangent modulus.
1
c
c
c
c
c
c
f

=

+

(5.41)
where
c
2
N/mm );
c
c
f

is
2
N/mm );
ci
2 /
c c
f E

= ;
ci
E the initial tangent
modulus of the concrete; and as a function of uniaxial compressive strength of
concrete
c
f

, can be estimated by the following formula
3
1.55
c
f

= +

(5.42)
The coefficient of variability increases when increasing the compressive strength of
the concrete. Therefore, if
2
21.0N/mm
c
f

= , 22.0 = and if
2
80.0N/mm
c
f

= , 71.4 = ,
for intermediate stress gradients, can be determined by linear interpolations.
In tension region, the stress-strain relationship is described by the CEB-FIB Model
Code 90 [2].
ci ci
ci
ci
0 0.9 /
0.1
(0.00015 ) 0.9 / 0.00015
0.00015 0.9 /
0 0.00015
c c t
t
c t c t c
t
c
E f E
f
f f E
f E

<

= <
>
(5.43)

(b) Confined Concrete
In compression region, Montoya et al.[3] proposed a concrete confinement model for
steel tube confined concrete is adopted for confined concrete. The stress
c
is related to

95
the strain
c
using the following formula:
2
1.0
cc
c
c c
cc cc
f
A B C
f f

=

+ +

(5.44)
where
d
A k = ;
sec
2
A
B
E
= ;
2
sec
A
C
E
= ; and
sec
cc
cc
f
E

d
k is given by the
following formula:
2
80
1
4
cc
d
cc c
f
k

=

(5.45)
where
cc c
c
(17 0.06 )
l
c c
f
f
f

= +

;
80 c
is the strain corresponding to 80% of the
peak stress,
cc
0.80 f ,and given by the following formula:
( )
80
1.5 89.5 0.6
l
c c c
c
f
f
f

= +

(5.46)
Peak axial stress for confined concrete
cc
f is defined as
cc
c t
1
l
f f
f f

= +

(5.47)
( )
0.21
c
t
1.25 1 0.062
l
f
f
f

= +

(5.48)
2/ 3
t
0.23( )
c
f f
= .
The effective lateral pressure
l
f

acting on the concrete due to the steel jacket can be
calculated as follows:
l s l
f k f
= (5.49)

96
where
s
confined area to the total cross section area and
l
f is the possible maximum confining
pressure that exerted by steel jacket on the concrete core.
s
k and
l
f can be calculated by
Eqs.(2.8) and (2.6) expressed in Chapter 2 respectively.
In tension region, the above stress-strain relationship proposed by the CEB-FIB
Model Code 90 [2] is adopted.

5.3.2 Steel
In the present study, the steel is modeled as an elastic-plastic material incorporating
strain hardening. Specifically, the relationship is linearly elastic up to yielding, plastic
between the elastic limit and the commencement of strain hardening, linear hardening
occurs up to the ultimate tensile stress shown in Fig.2.1.
However, local buckling occurs on the thin steel plates of concrete infill steel tube
members. In general, local buckling of thin steel plates depends on the plate aspect ratio,
width-to-thickness ratio, applied edge stress gradients, boundary conditions, geometric
imperfections, and residual stresses. According to Guideline of buckling design of JSCE
code [5], the post-buckling stress
ud
f is calculated as:
( ) /
ud s sy
f t s E f = (5.50)
where t is the thickness of the steel plate; s is the longitudinal spacing of shear
connectors;
s
E is the elastic modulus of the steel plate; and
sy
f is the yield strength of
the steel plate.

5.3.3 Reinforcement embedded in concrete
When uncracked concrete is in tension, the tensile force is distributed between the
reinforcement and the concrete in proportion to their respective stiffness, and cracking
occurs when the stress reaches a value corresponding to the tensile strength of the
concrete. In a cracked cross-section all tensile forces are balanced by the steel encased in
the concrete only. However, between adjacent cracks, tensile forces are transmitted from
the steel to the surrounding concrete by bond forces. The contribution of the concrete
may be considered to increase the stiffness of the tensile reinforcement. This effect is

97
called tension-stiffening. To describe this effect, a number of models have been proposed.
The majority of the models are based on the mean axial stress and the mean axial strain
of the concrete member in the reinforced concrete, [5-9].
To take the tension stiffening effect into account, the stress average strain
relationship of steel embedded in concrete proposed by the CEB-FIB model [2] is
considered to describe the behavior of the reinforced concrete members in tension.
According to the CEB-FIB Model Code 90 [2] the mean stress-strain relationship of
embedded steel may be expressed as
( )
( )
( )
, s,m sr1
srn sr1
sr1 , sr1 sr1 , srn
srn sr1
srn
srn , srn srn , sry
sry srn
sry , sr,sh
, sry sr,sh , sru
sru sry
, sru
1
1
s s m
s m s m
sy
s m s m
s
sy s m
su sy
sy s m s m
su s m
E
n
f
f
f f
f
f

+ <
+ <
=

<
+ <
>
(5.51)

where n and are the modular ratio and the geometric ratios of reinforcing steel,
respectively;
sr1
is the steel stress in the crack, when the first crack has formed;
srn
is
the steel stress in the crack, when the last crack has formed;
sr1
and
sr2
are the steel
strains at the point of zero slip and at the crack when the cracking forces reach
ct
f ;
( )
srn srn sr2 sr1
/ 0.4
s
E = ;
( )
sry sy sr2 sr1
0.4 = ;
( )
sr,sh sh sr2 sr1
0.4 = ;
( ) ( )
sru sr,sh sr1
0.8 1 / /
sy su sy st
f f f E = + ;
0.01
st s
E E = .
In the present study, the steel is modeled as an elastic- plastic material incorporating
strain hardening. Specifically, the relationship is linearly elastic up to yielding, plastic
between the elastic limit and the commencement of strain hardening, linear hardening

98
occurs up to the ultimate tensile stress shown in Fig.2.1.

5.3.4 Shear stud connector
The constitutive relationship proposed by Ollgaard et al. [10] is considered for the
shear stud connector. The analytical relationship between the shear force Q and the slip
of a shear stud is given by
( )
0.4
0.7087
1
u
Q Q e

= (5.52)
where Q is the applied load(N); is the slip of shear stud(mm).
The stiffness at 0.5
u
Q was proposed as initial stiffness of a shear stud is given by
( )
sh
0.16 0.0017
u
si
c
Q
K
d f
=
(5.53)
where
si
K is initial stiffness of a shear stud(N/mm);
u
Q is shear capacity of a shear stud
accounting for the effects of shear stud spacing and plate thickness, and given by
0.40
0.65 0.35
sh
1.3
5.3 ( )
c
u V su c
s
E
Q A f f
E n

=

(5.54)
where and
V
are reduction factors of the shear capacity and described in Chapter 2.

5.4 CROSS SECTIONAL ANALYSIS

The procedure followed to predict the flexural behavior of the composite segment
sections is an incremental iterative method with secant stiffness formulation. For the
present numerical procedure, the cross section is divided into a finite number of discrete
layers (fiber model). Because the slip effect causes an equivalent additional moment to
the section, the elastic flexural capacity (corresponding to the first yielding of the
extreme fiber of the section) of the composite segment is reduced. The calculation model
for the additional moment is shown in Fig. 5.5.

99
h
t
h
b
M
+
-
=
+ +
sb
st
N
st
M
t
N
ct
N
cb
M
b
N
sb
t2
ct
t1
c1
b2
b1
c2
uncracked concrete
cracked concrete

Fig.5.5 Calculation model for additional moment

The slip-induced strains of the skin plates at the interfaces are
( )
t
t c
st st
t
t t
=
+

( )
b
b c
sb sb
t
t t
=
+
(5.55)
where
st
and
sb
are the slip-induced strains at the top and bottom interfaces, respectively.
By using
st
for the top skin plate
sb
for the bottom skin plate, approximately
0.5
st
for the main girders in compression, and 0.5
sb
for the main girders in tension, the
axial force variations in the skin plate sections due to slip are
( )
( )
t
st t mt
t c
0.5
s st
t
N E A A
t t
= +
+
(5.56)

( )
( )
b
sb b mb
b c
0.5
s sb
t
N E A A
t t
= +
+
(5.57)
where
t
A is area of the top skin plate;
b
A is area of the bottom skin plate;
mt
A is area of
the main girders in compression; and
mb
A is area of the main girders in tension.
The additional moment in the section shown in Fig.5.5 is
t b st c t sb c b
1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3
M M M N t t N t t

= + = + + +

(5.58)
Substituting Eqs. (5.56), (5.57) into Eq.(5.57), Eq.(5.58) can be rewritten as:

100
( ) ( )
t b
t mt b mb
2 2
3 3
s st s sb
t t
M E A A E A A = + + + (5.59)
Therefore, when considering the slip effect, the elastic moment in the section causing
the same stress state as M for a case without slip is
p
M M M = (5.60)
The fiber element analysis is used to determine the bending moment M of the
member cross sections for a case without slip. In the fiber element method, a composite
section is discretized into many small regions (fiber elements) shown in Fig.5.6. Each
element represents a fiber of material running longitudinally along the member.
Constitutive models are based on the above described uniaxial stress-strain relationships
of materials. Stress resultants are obtained by numerical integration of stresses through
the composite cross section. In the present fiber analysis program, the origin of the
coordinate system is chosen to pass through the centroid of the composite section as
shown in Fig.5.6. The cross-sectional area of each fiber is automatically calculated based
on the discretization of fibers and the geometry of the composite section being
considered. Concrete fibers are grouped together as well as the steel fibers.

Steel fiber
Concrete fiber
y
x
H

Fig.5.6 Discretization of composite section

101
Member forces are determined as the stress resultants in a composite section by the
following equations:
, , , ,
1 1
ns nc
s i s i c j c j
i j
P A A
= =
= +

(5.61)
, , , ,
1 1
ns nc
s i s i i c j c j j
i j
M A y A y
= =
= +

(5.62)
where P is the axial force; M is bending moment about the major principal axis;
, s i
is
the longitudinal stress at centroid of steel fiber i ;
, s i
A is is the area of steel fiber
i ;
, c j
is the longitudinal stress at the centroid of concrete fiber j ;
, c j
A is the area of
concrete fiber j ;
i
y is the coordinates of steel fiber i ;
j
y is the coordinates of concrete
fiber j ; ns is the total number of steel fiber elements, andnc is the total number of
concrete fiber elements. Compressive stresses are taken to be positive. Stresses in fibers
are calculated using fiber strains and material stress-strain relationships.
In the present method, the proposed secant algorithm by Liang [11] is used in the
fiber element analysis program to iterate the depth and orientation of the neutral axis
until equilibrium conditions are satisfied. The neutral axis depth (
n
d ) is adjusted by
using the following equation:
( )
, 1 ,
, 2 , 1
, 1 ,
n j n j
n j n j
p j p j
d d
d d
f f
+
+ +
+
(5.63)
where the subscript j is the iteration number; and
p n
f P P = ,
n
P is the given axial
load. The convergence criterion for the neutral axis depth
n
d is defined by
, 1 , n j n j
d d e
+
(5.64)
where e is the convergence tolerance.
To simplify the calculation of ultimate carrying capacity, it is reasonably assumed
that the effect of transverse reinforcement can be ignored in carrying capacity
calculation. According to the position of the plastic neutral axis in the concrete infill, the
calculation of ultimate carrying capacity is discussed in the following section.

102
The strain and stress distributions over the section depth for composite segment are
shown in Fig.5.7. The strain in the tension steel,
, s m
at failure is given by:
t b c
,
t
s m cc
t t t d c
d t

+ +
=
(5.65)
where d is the depth of neutral axis; c is the depth of tension steel. For a segment section
with a constant width the parabolic portion of concrete stress distribution can be
replaced by an equivalent rectangular block introducing the stress block factors
1
and
1
[12]. The resultant forces of the equivalent rectangular block have the same
magnitude and location as those of the actual parabolic stress distribution.
2
cp cp
1 1
c c
1
/
3

=

(5.66)
cp c
1
cp
4 /
6 2 /
c

=

(5.67)
where
cp
is the concrete strain at the end of the parabolic portion of the concrete stress
distribution. At failure,
cp
is the ultimate compressive strain of an unconfined concrete
for unconfined segment while for steel tube-confined segment
cp c
= .

t
t
t
b
t
c
tm
, t1 s
f
,b1 s
f
As
c
Main reinforcement
s,m
cc st
( ) +
Equivalent Stress
distribution
Concrete
M
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
M
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
3
d
t
f

t
f

1 c
f

1 1
d
c
f

cc
f
2
d
1
d
d
cc
f
c
f

N.A
ct
cc

Actual Stress
distribution
Steel tube Concrete
Strain
distribution
Skin plate
Concrete infill
Skin plate
Composite section

Fig.5.7 Strain and stress distribution of composite segment

103
At failure, equilibrium conditions are imposed in terms of axial force,
u
P , and
bending moment,
u
M .
1 1 1 2 ,t1 t ,t1 t m
3 ,b1 b ,b1 t c m
u
( )
2
( )
2
cc c
c s s
ct
s s s st
f f
f d b d b f t b f d t t
f
d b f t b f t t d t A f
P

+
+ + +
+
=
(5.68)
( ) ( )
( )
( )
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
2
,t1 t 1 2 t ,t1 t m
2
3 ,b1 b t c b
2
,b1 t c m t c b
u
0.5 0.5
2
2
0.5 ( )
3
( 0.5 )
3
2
( )
3
cc c
c
s s
ct
s
s s st
f f
f d b d d d b d d
f t b d d t f d t t
f
d b f t t t t d b
f t t d t A t t t d c f
M

+
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
=
(5.69)
where
1
unconfined segment
confined segment
c
cc
d
d
d

=

;
2
0 unconfined segment
1 confined segment
c
cc
d
d

=

st
f is the stress in tension steel;
s
A is the area of the main reinforcements.
For simplification,
u
M can be calculated as:
( )
s-t s-b
u-tube full-Rd u-tube
s-t s-b
1
u
k k
M M M M
k k
+
= +
+
(5.70)
where
u-tube
M is the ultimate bending moment of steel tube;
full-Rd
M is the ultimate bending
moment of a full composite segment have the same section; and
s-t
k ,
s-b
k are degrees of
composite action and given by:
{ }
d-t
s-t
c c-tube
1
min ,
F
k
N N
= (5.71)
{ }
d-b
s-b
c b-tube
1
min ,
F
k
N N
=
(5.72)

104
where
d-t t u
F nV = ;
d-b b u
F n V = ;
c
N is the compression force of concrete;
c-tube
N is the
compression force of steel tube;
b-tube
N is the tension force of steel tube; and
u
V is the
shear capacity of a shear stud accounting for the effect of the joint plate, and given by:
u u
m n
n
Q
V Q = +
(5.73)
where
u
Q is the shear capacity of a shear stud accounting for the effects of shear stud
spacing and plate thickness;
n
Q (Eq.(2.26)) is the shear capacity of a joint plate; mis
the rows of a grouped shear studs; andn is columns of shear studs between the joint plate
and the analysis cross section.
In the performance-based analysis of composite segments under axial load and
bending, moment-curvature responses are obtained by incrementally increasing the
curvature and solving for the corresponding moment value for the given constant axial
load (
n
P ) and vertical load (
V
P ). A set of moment-curvature curves for the composite
section can be generated by incrementally increasing the vertical load (
V
P ) from zero to
the maximum value
max
P .
The analysis procedure used to predict the composite segment strength can be
summarized as follows:
(1) Discretize the composite section into fine fiber elements.
(2) Set axial fiber strains = .
(3). the neutral axis depth
( )
,1 ,2
,
n n
d d are set to H and H/2, and =
(4) Calculate fiber stresses using stress-strain relationships.
(5) Check local buckling and update steel fiber stresses accordingly.
(6) Calculate the vertical force (
V
P ) and bending moment (
n
M ) that satisfy equilibrium
requirements.
(7). Adjust the depth of the neutral axis ( d ) using Eq. (5.64).
(8) Repeat Steps (3)-(7) until
, 1 , n j n j
d d e
+
< .
(9) Using the Eq.(5.69) to calculate
max
.
(11) if
max
< , increase the vertical load by = + , where
max
/100 =
(12) Repeat Steps (3)-(11) until
max
M
(13) Calculate the vertical force (
max
P ) and bending moment (
max
M ).

105
5.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD

Accuracy of the proposed mechanical model is verified by comparing the results
with those obtained experimentally. Comparison of the bending capacity and bending
moment-curvature, load-deflection responses obtained from the proposed mechanical
analyses with those obtained experimentally provides a means to verify the accuracy of
the proposed mechanical model.
Comparison of the predicted results derived from the analysis procedure and the
experimental results in chapter 3 is shown in Table 5.6.
yt
M is measured yield bending
capacity. It shows that the elastic bending capacity without considering the slip is rather
larger than the experimental results. Taking into account the slip effect, the analysis
results are much closer to the measured values with a mean value of 1.058.

Table 5.6. Comparison of elastic bending capacities of composite segment specimens
Specimens
yt
M
(kNm)
M

(kNm)
M
(kNm)
p
M
(kNm)
p yt
/ M M
Case1 38.0 52.56 12.76 39.80
1.047
Case2 37.5 51.75 13.61 38.14
1.017
Case3 38.0 51.49 11.91 39.58
1.042
Case4 31.5 48.87 16.03 32.84
1.043
Case5 41.5 55.50 13.04 42.46
1.023
Case6 25.0 37.78 10.54 27.24
1.090
Case7 41.0 67.32 23.71 43.62
1.064
Case12 35.2 47.1 7.53 39.53
1.123
Case15 375.0 448.3 52.47 395.8
1.056
Case16 468.7 547.5 44.46 503.1
1.073
Mean value 1.058
Standard deviation 0.009

Table 5.7 shows the comparison between the experimental results and calculation
values from the present study, where
ut
M is measured ultimate bending capacity. It
shows that the simplified calculation for the ultimate bending moment is applicable in
practical design.

106
Table 5.7. Comparison of ultimate bending capacities of composite segment specimens
Specimens
s-t
k
s-b
k
ut
M
(kNm)
u
M
(kNm)
ut u
/ M M
Case1 0.50 0.31 47 49.1 0.958
Case2 0.36 0.22 46 49.6 0.928
Case3 0.67 0.41 47 44.1 1.066
Case4 0.50 0.31 43 43.4 0.992
Case5 0.50 0.31 50.2 52.6 0.955
Case6 0.70 0.43 33 38.6 0.855
Case7 0.38 0.23 53.2 51.5 1.034
Case12 0.78 0.70 42.7 45.6 0.936
Case15 0.68 0.75 456 474.7 0.961
Case16 0.57 0.62 581 584.2 0.995
Mean value 0.968

The moment-curvature response is obtained by subdividing the cross-section into a
large number of horizontal layers. The ultimate strain which is assumed as 0.0038 as
recommended by the compressive tests of the unconfined concrete. For each step or
increment of strain, the depth to the neutral axis is determined by the strain distribution
in main girderswhen the sum of all the forces acting on the section becomes zero (i.e.,
equilibrium of forces is satisfied). The moment of all the forces (acting on the section
layers) about the neutral axis is calculated and the curvature is determined by dividing
the concrete strain by the depth of the neutral axis. The entire curve is plotted by
repeating the above procedure until the ultimate strain in the confined concrete was
reached. The last point in the moment-curvature curve was the moment (flexural)
capacity of the section. The moment-curvature curves obtained using mechanical
analysis of the proposed model are compared with the curves obtained by the
experiments as shown in Fig.5.8. It can be observed that the curvatures predicted by the
proposed model are closer to the experimental curvatures.

107
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
0
10
20
30
40
50
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)

Curvature(1/m)
Closed-composite segment (Case1)
Experimental result
Proposed model

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
0
10
20
30
40
50
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)

Curvature(1/m)
Experimental result
Proposed model

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)

Curvature(1/m)
Experimental result
Proposed model

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)

Curvature(1/m)
Experimental result
Proposed model

Fig.5.8 Bending moment-curvature curves of Closed-composite segments

Fig.5.9 shows the load-midspan deflection curves of the experiments and mechanical
analysis of the proposed model. It can be observed that the load-midspan deflection
response predicted using the proposed model is similar to the corresponding
experimental plots. Therefore, it is evident from the comparisons between the results
calculated with the formula and the mechanical model that the calculated results with
reasonable accuracy. The difference between the experimental results and the calculated
results is considered that local buckling or yielding due to residual stress reduces the
rigidity of the composite segment section as well as cracks propagation.

108

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
900 200 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case1
Exprimental result
Proposed model
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
900 300 100 L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case12
Exprimental result
Proposed model

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 500 100mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case14
Exprimental result
Proposed model

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2100 750 150mm L B H =
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Case15
Exprimental result
Proposed model

Fig.5.9 Load-deflection curves of Closed-composite segments at midspan

5.7. SUMMARY

A nonlinear fiber element analysis method has been presented in this paper for the
inelastic analysis and design of concrete infill steel tubular composite segments with
local buckling and slips effects. Sectional geometry, residual stresses and strain
hardening of steel tubes and confined concrete models were considered in the proposed
mechanical model. The local buckling, slip and effective strength formulas were
incorporated into the nonlinear analysis procedures to account for local buckling and slip
effects on the strength and ductility performance of composite segments under combined

109
loads.
This paper has presented the formulation of differential equations suitable for the
solution of partially interactive steel tube composite segment elements. Closed form
solutions for single, double and uniform load arrangements on simple span segments
have been presented. A step-wise linearization method has been described which allows
the non-linear affects of concrete cracking and shear stud stiffness to be incorporated.
The analysis involves non-dimensional constants which affect the steel plate
interaction. The effects are either direct when the constant relates to the plate for which
it is formulated or crossed when it affects the opposite plate for which it is formulated.
More attention should be paid on the shear capacity of shear studs in composite
segments. In current codes, only some coefficients are suggested for considering the
influences of the concrete strength, steel strength, and shear stud dimension. It was
found that the shear stud spacing and the thickness of the welded steel plate also have
the effects on the shear capacity, so the coefficients and
V
are recommended.
Stopping criteria are required to terminate the iterative analysis process once
satisfactory solutions are obtained. In calculating the ultimate axial load of a composite
segment, the analysis may be stopped when axial strain in concrete exceeds the strain
corresponding to the peak stress of unconfined concrete or confined concrete. The
moment-curvature calculations may be stopped when the strain in steel exceeds the
specified ultimate strain or the strain in concrete exceeds the strain corresponding to the
peak stress of unconfined concrete or confined concrete.
Comparisons have been made between experimental results and the mechanical
predictions of behavior using the proposed method. Good agreement has been found and
this indicates that the method is suitable for general analysis of tunnel lining of
composite segment.

5.8. REFERENCES

1) Carreira, D. J., K.H. Chu,1985. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in
compression. J., Proc., ACI, 82(11), 797-804.
2) CEB-FIP model code 1990,1991. Lausanne (Switzerland): Comit Euro-International

110
du Bton.
3) Montoya, E.,2003. Behavior and analysis of confined concrete. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Toronto, Toronto.
4) Scanlon A, Murray DW, 1974. Time dependent deflections of reinforced concrete slab
deflections. Journal of the Structural Division,100(9):1911-1924.
5) JSCE, 2005. Buckling design guideline.
6) Lin CS, Scordelis AC,1975. Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of general form. Journal
of the Structural Division;101(3):523-538.
7) Vebo A, Ghali A,1977. Moment curvature relation of reinforced concrete slabs.
Journal of the Structural Division,103(3),515-531.
8) Gilbert R, Warner R,1978. Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs. Journal of
the Structural Division,104(12):1885-1900.
9) Q.H. Nguyen et al.,2009. Analysis of composite beams in the hogging moment
regions using a mixed finite element formulation. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 65, 737-748.
10) Oehlers DJ, Sved G.,1995. Composite beams with limited-slip-capacity shear
connectors. J Struct Eng.,32-38.
11) Qing Quan Liang, 2008. Nonlinear analysis of short concrete-filled steel tubular
beam-columns under axial load and biaxial bending. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 64, 295-304.
12) Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete basics; 1987. Ottawa,ON, Canada:
Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute (CPCI).

111
Chapter 6. Verification of the Proposed FEM
and Mechanical Models

6.1 INTRODUCTION

To verify the applicability and the accuracy of the results solved from the proposed
FEM and mechanical models in Chapters 4 and 5, SSPC segment and DRC segment are
simulated in this chapter. The associated theories, e.g., material properties, analysis
method, which are used in the analysis of SSPC segment and DRC segment and
described in Chapters 4 and 5.

6.2 SSPC SEGMENT

2 Steel Segments with Pre-filled Concrete (SSPC segment) were manufactured. The
constructing process of SSPC segment is shown in Fig.6.1 [1].
The details of SSPC segment specimens are shown in Fig.6.2 and the dimensions of
SSPC segments are summarized in Table6.1. The SSPC segment specimens are 73.5
central angle, 1981 mm inside diameter, 2106 mm outside diameter, 125 mm thickness.
Mechanical properties of steel and concrete are shown in Table6.2.

(a) Steel Segment (b) Casting concrete (c) Completed SSPC segment
Fig.6.1 Manufacturing process of SSPC segment

Verification of the Proposed FEM and Mechanical Models
112

Joint plate
Skin plate
R
ib
8
.0
9
3
8
.0
3
.
0
1
2
5
73.5
o

Fig.6.2 Detail of SSPC segment specimen

Table 6.1. Details of SSPC segment specimens
Dimension Thickness Rib
Skin
plate
Main
girder
Joint
plate
Specimen
Width
(mm)
inside
diameter
(mm)
outside
diameter
(mm)
central
angle
(degree)
t
s
(mm) t
m
(mm) t
j
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
SSPC(Positive bending ) 1000 1981 2106 73.5 3.0 8.0 8.0 93.0 8.0
SSPC(Negative bending ) 1000 1981 2106 73.5 3.0 8.0 8.0 93.0 8.0
Note: Positive bending is the load applied on the outside (ground side) of SSPC; Negative
bending is the load applied on the inside (tunnel side) of SSPC.

Table 6.2. Mechanical material properties for SSPC segment specimens
Structural steel Concrete
Specimen Yield strength
2
(N/mm )
y
f
Tensile strength
2
(N/mm )
s
f
Young modulus
2
(N/mm )
s
E
Compressive strength
2
(N/mm )
c
f
Young modulus
2
(N/mm )
c
E
SSPC 363 570 2.010
5
27.9 2.310
4

113
6.2.2 Test Setup
The simply supported SSPC segment specimens were loaded symmetrically at four
points within the span using a spreader beam shown in Fig.6.3. In these test
arrangements, such loading led, in theory, positive and negative pure bending between
applied forces of the composite segment specimens can be obtained between the two
loading points without the presence of shear and axial forces. The applied load was
measured and recorded using a load cell. The loads were increased gradually with an
increment of approximately 5kN until the ultimate carrying capacities of SSPC segment
specimens. Displacement transducers and Strain gauges located on the key points shown
in Fig.6.4 were used to measure strains and deflections respectively.
SSPC segment
C
L
Spreader beam
Load cell P
300
1113.3
Unitmm
Roller support
(a)Test setup for positive bending
SSPC segment
C
L
Load cell P
300
1116.7
Unitmm
Roller support
Spreader beam
(b)Test setup for negative bending
Fig. 6.3 Test setup for SSPC segment specimens

114
S2,S3,S4,S5 (The outside of main girder)
20
2
0
3
0
4
0
100
S6,S7,S8,S9 (The inside of main girder)
S1
S11,S12,S13,S14(The outside of main girder)
S10
1
2
0
0
The numbers S1,S2,S3 etc. denote the serial numbers of strain gauges
Unit : mm
1
2
5

Fig. 6.4 The arrangement of measuring instruments on SSPC segment specimens

6.2.3 Test Results and Discussion
Table6.3 gives the values of the yield load of each structural member and the ultimate
load, and cracking load for SSPC segment specimens and steel segment specimens. The
cracking load was taken as the applied load corresponding to crack occurring. The
ultimate load of SSPC segment specimen of Case2 equals to about 1.54 times of the
ultimate load of steel segment of Case2 under positive bending. The ultimate load of
SSPC segment specimen of Case4 equals to about 3.69 times of the ultimate load of steel
segment specimen of Case3 under negative bending. It can be observed that concrete
infill obviously affects the ultimate load of SSPC segment specimen under negative
bending.

115
Table 6.3. Experimental results of SSPC segment specimens
Specimen
Cracking
load
(kN)
Main girder
yielding load
(kN)
Skin plate
yielding load
(kN)
Ultimate
load
(kN)
Concrete
infill
Loading
method
Ratio of ultimate
load for SSPC to
Steel
(%)
Case1 --- 88.9 134.2 144.1 No Positive
Case2 --- 97.0 136.7 210.7 Yes Negative
Case3 37.2 93.6 --- 222.5 No Positive
Case4 --- 474.5 531.1 778.1 Yes Negative
u-case3
u-case1
100 154.4
P
P
=
u-case4
u-case2
100 369.3
P
P
=
Note: the dimensions of steel segment specimens are same as SSPC segment specimens,
including thickness of each structural member

(a)Load-deflection response
Load and midspan deflection relationships for all tested specimens can be described
by the load-midspan deflection curves shown in Fig.6.5. Case1 and Case3 are steel
segment specimens without concrete infill. It can be observed that the ultimate load and
deflection of SSPC segment are larger than those of the steel segment under positive
bending. However, the ultimate load of SSPC segment is larger than that of the steel
segment, and ultimate deflection is smaller than that of the steel segment under negative
bending.

0 3 6 9 12 15
0
50
100
150
200
250
8.0
9
3 8.0
3
.0
Case1
Case3
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Positive bending
Case1 steel segment specimen
Case3 SSPC segment specimen
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
8.0
9
3 8.0
3
.0
Case2
Case4
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Negative bending
Case2 steel segment specimen
Case4 SSPC segment specimen

(a) Positive bending (b) Negative bending
Fig.6.5. Load-deflection curves of SSPC segment specimens at midspan

116
(b)Strain distribution
Fig.6.6 shows the measured strain distribution along SSPC segment height (with the
origin at the edge of the main girder to tunnel side) on the double sides of the main
girders. Such curves are displayed under different loading levels for the sections of the
100mm distance from the midspan section. The strain values for the main girders were
taken as the average strain values (from the measured strain based on the
symmetrically-installed strain gauges in the sections of the 100mm distance from the
midspan section). It can be observed that the plane sections remain plane after loading,
because the strain distribution along the height main girder is linear, if the strain values
of the origin are neglected.

-1200 0 1200 2400 3600 4800
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
100
S1,S10
24.5kN
49.0kN
73.5kN
88.2kN
122.5kN
Case1

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
ground side

Microstrain

-1200 0 1200 2400 3600 4800
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
100
S1,S10
ground side
24.5kN
49.0kN
73.5kN
122.5kN
147.0kN
Case3 with concrete infill

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)

Microstrain

(a) Positive bending
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
100
S1,S10
2
0 2
0
3
0
4
0
24.5kN
49.0kN
73.5kN
88.2kN
117.6kN
Case2

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Tunnel side

Microstrain

-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
S1,S10
2
0 2
0
3
0
4
0
58.8kN
96.0kN
156.8kN
196.0kN
264.6kN
294.0kN
343.0kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Tunnel side

Microstrain

(b) Negative bending
Fig.6.6. Measured strain distribution along the height main girder

117

(a) Longitudinal cracks (b) Concrete crushing
Fig.6.7. Failure modes of SSPC segment specimens

(c)Failure modes
The failure modes of the SSPC segment are shown in Fig.6.7. Failure of the SSPC
segment specimen occurs in tensional region under positive bending due to the bending
cracks shown in Fig.6.7 (a). For failure of the SSPC segment specimen under negative
bending, compression concrete infill exhibits crushing failure when reaching its ultimate
strain as shown in Fig.6.7 (b).

6.2.4 FEM Results and Discussion
The full scale SSPC segment specimens are modeled and shown in Fig6.8. The simply
support boundary conditions are applied at the support points. 8-Node 3D solid elements
with tri-linear interpolation and nonlinear interpolation are used to model steel plates and
concrete, respectively. Vertical load is distributed to all the nodes on the loading
positions. Contact analysis with a friction coefficient of 0.1, and the relative sliding
velocity (
V
R ) of default value 0.1 is used in FEM analysis.

118

(a) Steel segment (b) FEM model of steel segment

(c) SSPC segment (d) FEM model of SSPC segment

(e) Negative bending (f) Positive bending
Fig.6.8 Finite element model of an SSPC segment

119
Among the analysis results, load vs. midspan deflection response histories of SSPC
segment specimens (with shear ribs) are shown in Fig.6.9. Comparing the analyzed
results with the experimental results, it can be seen that the load-deflection curves from
numerical analysis are agree with the experimental load- load-deflection curves.
Load-relative slip response histories of SSPC segment specimens (with shear ribs)
are shown in Fig.6.10. It can be observed that the vertical relative slip between the steel
tube and concrete infill occurs, especially in the applying positive bending load. It
should be noted that the vertical relative slip affect the behavior of composite segment in
design.

0 3 6 9 12 15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
SSPC segment
C
L
Load cell P
300
1116.7
Unitmm
Roller support
Spreader beam
SSPC negative bending
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Exprimental result
FEM result
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
SSPC segment
C
L
Spreader beam
Load cell P
300
1113.3
Unitmm
Roller support
SSPC Positive bending
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Exprimental result
FEM result

Fig.6.9 Load-deflection curves for tested SSPC segment specimens at midspan

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
Key location
SSPC
Positive bending

L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Vertical relative slip(mm)

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Key location
SSPC
Negative bending

L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

Fig.6.10 Load-relative slip relationship for SSPC segment specimens

120
distributions of nonlinear analysis show good agreement with the experimental results in
main girders. The tendency of the strain distribution of nonlinear analysis shows close
agreement with the experimental value in the skin plates.

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Line Plot
2
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
100
S1,S10
ground side
24.5kN
49.0kN
73.5kN
122.5kN
147.0kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)

Microstrain

-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Line Plot
100
S1,S10
2
0 2
0
3
0
4
0
58.8kN
96.0kN
156.8kN
196.0kN
264.6kN
294.0kN
343.0kN

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

m
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
(
m
m
)
Tunnel side

Microstrain

Fig.6.11 Strain distribution for main girder of SSPC segment specimens

(c)Failure modes
Fig.6.12 shows images of the finite element model and the experiments for SSPC
segment specimens, with those deformed geometry. It can be seen that the crack pattern
predicted using the finite element model is similar to the observed pattern.

(a) Equivalent of cracking strain in tension (b) Longitudinal cracks in tension

121

(c) Plastic strain in compression (d) Concrete crushing in compression
Fig.6.12 Concrete infill failure of SSPC segment specimens

(d)Contact status
Fig.6.13 shows the images of contact status and contact force of SSPC segment
specimens. It can be seen that the steel tube separates from the concrete infill under
positive bending. However, the steel tube contacts the concrete infill throughout the
applied loading process.

(a) Contact normal force (Concrete infill) (b) Contact normal force (Steel tube)
Positive bending

122

(c) Contact normal force (Concrete infill) (d) Contact normal force (Steel tube)
Negative bending
Fig.6.13 Contact status of SSPC segment specimens

(e)Stress Distribution
plates of SSPC segment specimens. It can be seen that the longitudinal stress
(x-direction) in the steel tube is non-uniformly distributed along the width under positive
bending, and is uniformly distributed along the width under negative bending. Therefore,
the skin plate in tension can be assumed as the member of full cross-section effective.


123

Fig.6.14 x-directional stress in steel tube of SSPC segment specimens

Transverse joint
Ductile cast iron
Infilled concrete
Reinforcing bar

Fig.6.15 DRC segment [2]

6.3 DRC SEGMENT

DRC segments (Ductile Cast Iron and Reinforced Concrete Segment) shown in
Fig.6.15 were used in the fourth section of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Outer
Underground Discharge Channel. The Outer Underground Discharge Channel is about
6.3 km in length for flood control, connecting Naka River, Ayase River, and Edo River,
and locates underground as shown in Fig.6.16 [2].

124

1st section
2nd section
3rd section
4th section

(a) The location of the Outer Underground Discharge Channel

(b) Vertical section of geological profile at the fourth section
Fig.6.16 Arrangement of the Discharge Channel tunnel and ground condition of 4th section

125
Details of the fourth section of the Outer Underground Discharge Channel tunnel are
shown in Fig.6.17. The tunnel is 11.8m outside diameter, 10.9m inside diameter and
about 50m overburden. A segmental ring consists of 1 wedge-shaped segment (KP,
inserted from the tunnel axial direction), 2 adjacent segments (BP) and 6 standard
segments (A1P~A6P). These DRC segments are 40.0 in central angle, 1200mm in
width and 450mm in thickness.

Segment arrangement S=1/50
(To face side) Face side
Shaft side
Lift position
Grouting position
A6
B7
K8
B9
A1
A2
A3 A4
A5

Fig.6.17 Segmental ring arrangement

126
Details of the standard segments (A1P~A6P) are shown in Fig.6.18. The standard
segments (A1P~A6P) consist of 11mm thickness skin plate, 20mm thickness main
girders(including outside main girders and inside main girders), and 20mm thickness
joint plates of ductile cast iron, and reinforced concrete infilling(reinforcing bars
including D29 main reinforcements and D13 structural reinforcements).
C
C
A
A
Face side
Shaft side
SM490
A1~A6 segments S=1/50
B
B

face side shaft side
View C-C S=1/10
View A-A S=1/10
View A-A S=1/10

Fig.6.18 Configuration and reinforcing bar layout of A1P~A6P segments

127
In general, the lining member of tunnel is subjected to combined bending, axial and
shear forces. Therefore, it is important to study the mechanical behavior of segments
(called as tunnel lining) under confined bending and axial forces. However, it is very
difficult that the axial force is applied on the segment with curvature in the laboratory
experiments. If the ratio of the thickness of segment to the radius of the tunnel is smaller
than 1/20, the segment without curvature can be used to study the mechanical behavior
of the segment under combined bending and axial forces. In this study, the DRC segment
specimens without curvature of the same dimensions as the actual used DRC segments
in the fourth section of the Outer Underground Discharge Channel tunnel were design
and tested. Details of the standard segment specimens (AP) are shown in Fig.6.19 and
the dimensions of DRC segments are summarized in Table6.4. Mechanical properties of
ductile cast iron, reinforcing bar, and concrete are shown in Table6.5.

400
100
1200
1
0
0
3
5
0
4
6
5
125 100 125
3
6
5
150 125 125 100 100
400 400
D29 (SD295)
150
20
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
540 475 475 410 540 475 475 410
4
6
5
3800
540 475 410 475 410 475 475 540
A A
View A-A
B
B
View B-B
Main reinforcements(D29) structural reinforcements(D13)
Inside main girder
Unit: mm
Fig.6.19. Configuration and reinforcing bar layout of DRC segment specimens

128
Table 6.4. Details of DRC segment specimens
Dimension Thickness Main girders
Skin
plate
Main
girder
Joint
plate
outside inside Specimen
Width
(mm)
Length
L(mm)
Height
H(mm)
t
s
(mm) t
m
(mm) t
j
(mm)
Height
(mm)
DRC(Positive bending ) 1200 3800 465 11.0 20.0 20.0 450 350
DRC(Negative bending ) 1200 3800 465 11.0 20.0 20.0 450 350
Note: Positive bending is the load applied on the outside (ground side) of DRC; Negative
bending is the load applied on the inside (tunnel side) of DRC.

Table 6.5. Mechanical material properties for DRC segment specimens
Member Material
Yield strength
(N/mm
2
)
Tensile strength /Compressive
strength(N/mm
2
)
Young modulus
(N/mm
2
)
Ductile cast iron FCD500-7 340 516 1.710
5

Concrete
Design strength
30 N/mm
2

-- 49.3 3.310
4

Main reinforcement
(D29)
SD295 349 536 2.110
5

Structural reinforcement
(D13)
SD295 393 531 2.110
5

6.3.2 Test Setup
The DRC segment specimens were tested under constant axial load and increasing
bending load. Fig.6.20 gives a schematic view the test setup. The axial tensional/
compressive loads were applied and maintained constant by the 4 hydraulic actuators.
The bending load was applied by vertical loading in the 500mm range from the left/right
of the midspan of the DRC segment specimen via a hydraulic actuator. The axial loading
history was generally based on the spring-beam model analysis for the segment design
of the fourth section of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge
Channel.

129
4300
Note: Test setup is the joint bending testing, segment testing is the half
width of the above test setup
1650

8270
500

1700

1900

950

2400

3800

Abutment
Specimen
Loading position

Cable used to apply axial force

Pushing actuator applying axial force
Frame used to
apply axial force
Actuator used to
apply axial force
Actuator used to
apply axial force Pushing actuator applying axial force Cable used to apply axial force
Abutment
Loading position

Fig.6.20 Test setup for DRC segment specimens [2](Unit:mm)
(Cable) 8270
1200
6050

1700

1700

500

500

3800

950

650

950

650

Vertical loading actuator

Frame used to
apply axial force
Actuator used to
apply axial force

Abutment

Pushing actuator applying axial force

Specimen
Cable used to apply axial force
Load P

Axial force N

N

Abutment
Axial force

130
The testing steps of DRC segment specimens under combined positive bending/
negative bending and axial load are shown in Fig.6.21, and consist of the 4 test steps.
The first three steps are the applied load reached the yield carrying capacity under
compressive axial load, no axial load, and tensional axial load respectively. The last step
is the applied load reached the DRC segment specimens failure under no axial load.
Displacement transducers and Strain gauges located on the key points shown in Fig.6.22
and Fig.6.23 were used to measure strains and deflections, respectively.

Case1
No inner water pressure
Case2
Inner water pressure
N=0kN(positive)
N=0kN(negative)
N=345kN(positive)
N=521kN(negative)
Design load(Case2)
P=199kN(positive)
P=223kN(negative)
Allowable carrying capacity
P=1050kN(positive)
P=1215kN(negative)
N=0kN(positive)
N=0kN(negative)
N=-4767kN(positive)
N=-5283kN(negative)
Full plastic Load
P=3645kN(positive)
P=4145kN(negative)
Yield Load
P=1757kN(positive)
P=2839kN(negative)
Allowable carrying capacity
P=1050kN(positive)
P=1215kN(negative)
allowable carrying capacity
P=997kN(positive)
P=720kN(negative)
Actual allowable carrying capacity
P=1499kN(positive)
P=2442kN(negative)
Design load(Case1)
P=672kN(positive)
P=471kN(negative)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
(
b
e
n
d
i
n
g

l
o
a
d
)
Axial load

Fig.6.21 Testing steps

The numbers 1,2,3 etc. denote the serial numbers of displacement transducer
Unit : mm
1
3
2 6 4
200
3800
8
7
500 9
5
200
450 500 450
1
2
0
0
10
11
12
14
13
15
6
0
0

Fig. 6.22 The arrangement of displacement transducers on DRC segment specimens

131
475 475 475 475 450 400 100 500 450
200 200
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
Mian measuring section
Abutment Abutment
Loading position Loading position
WFLA-6-11-5LT
FLA-5-11-5LT
WFLA-6-11-5LT
FLA-5-11-5LT
WFLA-6-11-5LT
FLA-5-11-5LT FLA-5-11-5LT
FLA-5-11-5LT
WFLA-6-11-5LT with waterproof
Strain fixed only the outside
for main girder

(a) The arrangement of strain gauges on skin plate
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
475 475 475 475 450 400
100
500 450
200 200
Abutment Abutment
4
6
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
200 200
Abutment Abutment
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0 2
0
0
2
0
0
Longtitudinal direction(WFLA-6-11-5LT ;FLA-5-11-5LT )
Transversal direction(WFLA-6-11-5LT ;FLA-5-11-5LT )
Outside main girder
Inside main girder

(b) The arrangement of strain gauges on main girders

132
475 475 475 475 450 400
100
500 450
200 200
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
Abutment Abutment
PML-60-5L (Mortar strain gauage)
PL-90-11 for concrete
4
6
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0

(c) The arrangement of strain gauges on concrete infill
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
3800
475 475 475 475 450 400
100
500 450
200 200
Abutment
Abutment
4
6
5
Main reinforcement (WFLA-6-11-5LT with waterproof )
Structural reinforcement (WFLA-6-11-5LT with waterproof )(bottom side)
Structural reinforcement (WFLA-6-11-5LT with waterproof )(Vertical)

(d) The arrangement of strain gauges on reinforcing bars
Fig. 6.23 The arrangement of strain gauges on DRC segment specimens

133
6.3.3 Test Results and Discussion

Load and midspan deflection relationships for the tested specimens can be described
by the load-midspan deflection curves shown in Fig.6.24. It can be observed that the
deflections of DRC segment specimens under only bending load are different from those
of DRC segment specimens under combined bending and compressive/tensional axial
loads. However, this difference of the deflection is very small under combined negative
bending and compressive/tensional axial loads.
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Tensional axial load(N=345kN)
for considering inner water pressure
No axial load(N=0kN)
Allowable stress state
Ultimate limit state
Compressive axial load(N=-4767kN)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
First step (Vertical load +Compressive axial load)
Second step (Vertical load to allowable carrying capacity)
Thrid step (Vertical load +Tensional axial load)
Fourth step (Vertical load to ultimate carrying capacity)

0 5 10 15 20 25
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Allowable stress state
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
First step (Vertical load +Compressive axial load)
Second step (Vertical load to allowable carrying capacity)
Thrid step (Vertical load +Tensional axial load)
Fourth step (Vertical load to ultimate carrying capacity)

Fig.6.24. Load-deflection curves of DRC segment specimens at midspan

134
Fig.6.25 shows the measured strain distributions on each composite structural
member of DRC segment specimens. Such curves are displayed under different loading
levels for the measured sections. It is observed from Fig.6.25 (a) that the strain values in
the skin plates increase and decrease repeatedly, and the strain distribution shows non-
uniform distribution along the width. The strain response is attributed to the shear lag
effect. Some values of the strains in the skin plates are larger than the values of the
strains in the edges of the main girders. The confinement effect of the main girders on
the deflection of the skin plates is greater. The strain values for the main girders were
taken as the average strain values (from the measured strain based on the
symmetrically-installed strain gauges in the sections of the 100mm distance from the
midspan section). It can be observed from Fig.6.25 (b) that the plane sections remain
plane after loading, because the strain distribution along the height main girder is linear.
The strain values for the main girders were taken as the average strain values (from the
measured strain based on the symmetrically-installed strain gauges in the sections of the
100mm distance from the midspan section). The strain distribution of main
reinforcements show markedly change under positive bending and negative bending
shown in Fig.6.25 (c), it can be seen that main reinforcements resist the large tensional
force under combined positive bending and axial loads, because the cracks are
progressive and through growth.

-1000 -750 -500 1500 2000
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Positive bending
475 475 450 400 100
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1900
Skin plate
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

N=-4757kN, allowable carrying capacity
N=0, allowable carrying capacity
N=345kN, allowable carrying capacity
N=0, yield load
-500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
-240
-180
-120
-60
0
60
120
180
240
Positive bending
Concrete side(tunnel inside)
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
4
6
5
475 475 450 400
100
Outside main girder
Skin plate side(ground side)
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)
N=0, yield load

(a) Skin plate (b) Outside main girders

135
-2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Positive bending
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
1900
475 475 450 400 100
Main reinforcement
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

N
=
-
4
7
5
7
k
N
,

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
=
0
,

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
=
3
4
5
k
N
,

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
=
0
,

y
i
e
l
d

l
o
a
d
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
4
6
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
5
3
6
5
2
2
5
3
6
5
1
2
0
0
475 475 450 400 100
C
L
Positive bending
Central rib
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

N=0, yield load

(c) Main reinforcements (d) Central rib
Positive bending

-3500-3000-2500-2000-1500-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Negative bending
475 475 450 400 100
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1900
Skin plate
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

N=0, yield load
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-240
-180
-120
-60
0
60
120
180
240
Negative bending
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0 2
0
0
4
6
5
475 475 450 400 100
Outside main girder
N=0, yield load
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)

(a) Skin plate (b) Outside main girders
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
N=0, yield load
Negative bending
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
1900
475 475 450 400 100
Main reinforcement
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
N=0, yield load
4
6
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
5
3
6
5
2
2
5
3
6
5
1
2
0
0
475 475 450 400 100
C
L
Negative bending
Central rib
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

(c) Main reinforcements (d) Central rib
Negative bending
Fig.6.25. Measured strain distribution

136
Fig.6.25 (d) shows the measured strain distribution along transversal direction on the
central rib. It is observed that the strain values are very small, and maximum deflection
on transversal direction is about 0.14mm. Therefore, this deflection on transversal
direction can be neglected, because of considering the constrained effect by the adjacent
segmental ring on longitudinal direction in actual tunnel.

(b)Relative slip
Fig.6.26 shows the relative slip of the interface between outside main girders and
concrete infill. The relative slips were measured by the cantilever displacement
transducers. It is observed that the relative slips occur on the interface between outside
main girders and concrete infill of transversal and longitudinal directions. Therefore, the

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
6
0
0
475 475 450 4@100 100
4
6
5
Cantile ver displaceme nt transd ucers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Full loading steps under positive bending

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
6
0
0
47 5 47 5 45 0 4 @1 00 1 00
4
6
5
Can ti l e ve r di spl a ce me nt tr ansdu ce rs
L4 L2 a L1 a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Horizontal relative slip(mm)
Positive bending

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
6
0
0
475 475 45 0 4@100 100
4
6
5
Canti lever displacement transducers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
6
0
0
47 5 475 450 4 @100 100
4
6
5
Ca n til e ve r disp la ce me n t t ra nsdu cer s
L 4 L 2a L 1a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Positive bending


137
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
3600
4200
4800
6
0
0
475 475 450 4@100 100
4
6
5
Canti lever displaceme nt transducers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Full loading steps under negative bending

-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
3600
4200
4800
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
6
0
0
475 475 450 4@100 100
4
6
5
Cant ilever displacement transducers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
Full loading steps
under negative bending

-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
3600
4200
4800
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
6
0
0
475 475 450 4@100 100
4
6
5
Can tilever displaceme nt tran sducers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
Full loading steps

-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
3600
4200
4800
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
6
0
0
47 5 4 7 5 45 0 4 @ 10 0 10 0
4
6
5
C an tile ver d isp la cem en t tra nsdu ce r s
L 4 L 2a L 1a
Measured point
Full loading steps

Fig.6.26. Load-relative slip curves of DRC segment specimens

effect of relative slip on the deflection and load carrying capacity of composite structure
should be considered.

(c)Failure modes
The failure modes of the DRC segment specimens are shown in Fig.6.27. Failure of
the DRC segment specimen occurs in tensional region under positive bending due to the
bending cracks. Failure of the DRC segment specimen under negative bending was not
observed, because the testing condition was limited. The crack pattern seen on the
tensional region is progressive and through growth of the small spacing transversal
cracks under positive bending; and on compressive region is progressive and
non-uniform of the spalling cracks

138

Width of the cracks(Unit: mm) 0.080.150.100.080.100.06
0.06less than0.04less than 0.040.04

(a) The cracks distribution of third loading step

(b) The cracks distribution at failure
Fig.6.27. Failure modes under combined positive bending and axial loads [2]

6.3.4 FEM Results and Discussion
Only one quarter of each the DRC segment specimens are modeled taking advantage
of symmetry in two mutually perpendicular vertical planes shown in Fig6.28. Symmetric
boundary conditions are applied at the two vertical planes of symmetry. 8-Node 3D solid
elements with tri-linear interpolation and nonlinear interpolation are used to model steel
plates and concrete, respectively. 8-Node 3D solid element with bi-linear interpolation is
used to model reinforcing bars. The vertical and horizontal constraints are applied at the
bottom of the support along its centre line and mid-span section respectively.
Longitudinal load is distributed to all the nodes on top of the loading plate, with nodes at
symmetry plane getting half of the load at rest of the nodes. Axial load is given as a
uniform pressure load at the DRC segment end. It is applied in first and third loading

139
steps, which is the case in the experiment too. For instance, axial load is given as zero;
the vertical load is increased until to actual allowable carrying capacity and ultimate
carrying capacity in second and fourth loading steps respectively. Contact analysis with
a friction coefficient of 0.1 and the relative sliding velocity (
V
R ) of default value 0.1 is
used in FEM analysis

(a) FEM model of DRC segment

(b) Negative bending (c) Positive bending
Fig.6.28 Finite element model of a DRC segment

Among the analysis results, load vs. midspan deflection response histories of DRC
segment specimens (with shear ribs, reinforcements) are shown in Fig.6.29.
Comparing the analyzed results with the experimental results, it can be seen that the
load-deflection curves from numerical analysis are agree with the experimental load-
load-deflection curves.

140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Exprimental result(Full steps)
FEM result(Compressive axialload + positive bending load)
FEM result(Tensional axial load + positive bending load)
FEM result(No axial load, the applied load to failure)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
FEM result(Compressive axialload + positive bending load)
FEM result(Tensional axial load + positive bending load)
FEM result(No axial load, the applied load to failure)

Fig.6.29 Load-deflection curves for tested DRC segment specimens at midspan

141
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Line+Plot Plot
6
0
0
475 475 450 4@100 100
4
6
5
Cantilever displaceme nt transducers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Four loading step under positive bending

-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Line+Plot Plot
Four loading step under positive bending
6
0
0
475 475 450 4@100 100
4
6
5
Cantilever displacement transducers
L4 L2a L1a
Measured point
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

Fig.6.30 Load-relative slip relationship for DRC segment specimens

Load-relative slip response histories of DRC segment specimens (with shear ribs,
reinforcements) are shown in Fig.6.30. It can be observed that the vertical relative slip
between the steel tube and concrete infill occurs, especially in the applying positive
bending load. It should be noted that the vertical relative slip affect the behavior of
composite segment in design.

142
distributions of nonlinear analysis show good agreement with the experimental results in
main girders. The tendency of the strain distribution of nonlinear analysis shows close
agreement with the experimental value in the skin plates. In addition, the strain
distribution along the skin plate width for DRC segment specimens is uniform. It can be
concluded that the evaluation of shear studs is necessary to design composite segments.

-1000 -800 -600 -400 0 200 400 600 800
-600
-300
0
300
600
Positive bending
Line Plot
475 475 450 400 100
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1900
Skin plate
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

N=0, yield load
-3500-3000-2500-2000-1500-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Line Plot
Negative bending
475 475 450 400 100
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1900
Skin plate
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
N=0, yield load

(a) Strain distribution for skin plate

-1200-900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 12001500180021002400
-300
-240
-180
-120
-60
0
60
120
180
240
Line Plot Positive bending
N=0, yield load
100
100
100
100
200
4
6
5
475 475 450 400
100
Outside main girder
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-240
-180
-120
-60
0
60
120
180
240
300
Line Plot
Negative bending
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0 2
0
0
4
6
5
475 475 450 400 100
Outside main girder
N=0, yield load
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)

(b) Strain distribution for main girder

143
-800 -400 400 800 1200 1600
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Line Plot

N
=
-
4
7
5
7
k
N
,

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
=
0
,

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
=
3
4
5
k
N
,

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
=
0
,

y
i
e
l
d

l
o
a
d
Positive bending
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
1
5
0
1
2
0
0
1900
475 475 450 400 100
Main reinforcement
Ploting position
Microstrain

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

- 6 0 0 - 4 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0
- 6 0 0
- 4 0 0
- 2 0 0
0
2 0 0
4 0 0
6 0 0
L i n e P l o t
F E M r e s u l t E x p e r i m
N = - 5 2 8 3 k N , a
N = 0 , a
N = 5 2 1 k N , a
N = 0 , y
N e g a t i v e b e n d i n g
1 9 0 0
4 7 5 4 7 5 4 5
M a i n r e i n f o r c e m e n t
P l o
M i c r o s t r a i n

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

(c) Strain distribution for main reinforcements
Fig.6.31 Strain distribution for the members of DRC segment specimens

(c)Failure modes
Fig. 6.32 shows images of the finite element model and the experiments for DRC
segment specimens, with those deformed geometry. It can be seen that the crack pattern
predicted using the finite element model is similar to the observed pattern.

(a) Equivalent of cracking strain in tension

144

Width of the cracks(Unit: mm) 0.080.150.100.080.100.06
0.06less than0.04less than 0.040.04

(b) Longitudinal cracks in tension

(c) Plastic strain in compression
Fig.6.32 Concrete infill failure of DRC segment specimens

145
(d)Contact status
Fig.6.33 shows the images of contact status and contact force of DRC segment
specimens. It can be seen that the steel tube separates from the concrete infill under
positive bending. However, the steel tube contacts the concrete infill throughout the
applied loading process.

(a) Contact status (Positive bending)

(b) Contact status (Negative bending)
Fig.6.33 Contact status of DRC segment specimens

146
(e)Stress Distribution
plates of DRC segment specimens. It can be seen that the longitudinal stresses
(x-direction) in the skin plate are uniformly distributed along the width under positive
bending and negative bending. Therefore, the composite degree is defined by shear
connector in design.


Fig.6.34 x-directional stress in skin plate of DRC segment specimens

147
6.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE MECHANICAL MODEL

The applicability of the proposed mechanical model based on Closed-composite
segment is verified by comparing the experimental results of SSPC segment and DRC
segment. The following contents should be replaced, when the proposed mechanical
model is used in the structural analysis of others type segment.
(1)
0 Positive bending
0 negative bending
b
slip
t
=
=

=
, and
s-t
0 k = /
s-b
0 k = , because of one skin
plate.
(2) No relative slip occurs between concrete and reinforcement.
(3) The post-buckling stress
ud
f is defined by the parameters of the used materials.
(4) Stud shear connector is replaced by rib shear connector. The shear strength of a
rib shear connector is calculated by Eq.(2.26).
Displacement equilibrium can be written as follows:
Substituting 0
b
= , 0
t
= into Eqs.(5.24) and (5.25) gives:
1 1 t t
V
= + (6.1)
2 2 b b
V
= + (6.2)
For the load cases shown in Fig.5.4, solving Eqs. (6.1) and (6.2), and using the
boundary conditions that
0 0
0
t b
x x

= =
= = ,
/ 2 / 2
0
t b
x L x L

= =
= = and / 2 V P = gives
the relative slip solution
( )
( )
1
2 1
L x L x
L
P e e e
e

+
=
+
(6.3)
Correspondingly, the relative slip strain solution is
( )
( )
2 1
x x L
s
L
P e e
e

=
+
(6.4)
where
1 2
or =
,
1 2
or =
,
t
1
1
h
EI
=
,
b
2
2
h
EI
=

148
1 t t m mt m mb c cu
EI E I E I E I E I = + + +
,
2 b b m mt m mb c cu
EI E I E I E I E I = + + +
,
2
t
1
t 1 t t m mt c cu
1 1
t
K h
s EI E A E A E A

= + +

+

,
2
b
2
b 2 b b m mb c cu
1 1
b
K h
s EI E A E A E A

= + +

+

.
The total deflection calculated from elastic deformation and slip-induced deflection
is

( )
( )
3
1
1
48 4 2 1
L
L
e
PL L
P
EI h h e
= + +

+

(6.5)
( )
( )
2
2
2 3
12 2 2 4 2 1
b L b
L
P L L L b e e
b b b L b P
EI h h e

= + + +

+

(6.6)

( )
( )
4 2 / 2
3
2
5 2 1
384 8 1
L L
L
qL L e e
q
EI h h e

= + +

+

(6.7)
In the performance-based analysis of composite segments under axial load and
bending, moment-curvature responses are obtained by the analysis procedure described
in Chapter 5.
Comparison of the predicted results derived from the analysis procedure and the
experimental results of SSPC segment and DRC segment is shown in Table 6.6.
yt
M is
measured yield bending capacity. It shows that the analysis results are much closer to the
measured values with a mean value of 1.028.

Table 6.6. Comparison of elastic bending capacities of composite segment specimens
Specimens
yt
M
(kNm)
M

(kNm)
M
(kNm)
p
M
(kNm)
p yt
/ M M
SSPC(Positive) 23.7 25.9 1.1 24.8 1.04
SSPC(Negative) 90.8 94.3 1.5 92.8 1.02
DRC(Positive) 1059.3 1147.1 59.4 1087.7 1.03
DRC(Negative) 1704.6 1809.6 69.1 1740.4 1.02
Mean value 1.028

149
Table 6.7 shows the comparison between the experimental results and calculation
values from the present study, where
ut
M is measured ultimate bending capacity. It
shows that the simplified calculation for the ultimate bending moment is applicable in
practical design of others type segment.

Table 6.7. Comparison of ultimate bending capacities of composite segment specimens
Specimens
s-t
k
s-b
k
ut
M
(kNm)
u
M
(kNm)
ut u
/ M M
SSPC(Positive) 0.92 0 46.2 44.9 0.97
SSPC(Negative) 0 0.91 162.1 155.8 0.96
DRC(Positive) 0.89 0 2186.8 2242.3 1.025
DRC(Negative) 0 0.86 2693.6(*) 3086.9 ---
Note: * means the bending moment is not ultimate bending moment due to the limitation of the
test setup.

The moment-curvature response is obtained by subdividing the cross-section into a
large number of horizontal layers. The ultimate strain is obtained by the compressive
tests of the unconfined concrete. For each step or increment of strain, the depth to the
neutral axis is determined by the strain distribution in main girderswhen the sum of all
the forces acting on the section becomes zero (i.e., equilibrium of forces is satisfied);
then the moment of all the forces (acting on the section layers) about the neutral axis is
calculated and the curvature is determined by dividing the concrete strain by the depth of
the neutral axis. The entire curve is plotted by repeating the above procedure until the
ultimate strain in the confined concrete was reached. The last point in the
moment-curvature curve was the moment (flexural) capacity of the section. The
moment-curvature curves obtained using mechanical analysis of the proposed model are
compared with the curves obtained by the experiments as shown in Fig.6.35. It can be
observed that the curvatures predicted by the proposed model are closer to the
experimental curvatures.

150
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
0
10
20
30
40
50
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)

Curvature(1/m)
SSPC segment (Positive)
Experimental result
Proposed model

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
SSPC segment (Negative)
Experimental result
Proposed model
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)
Curvature(1/m)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Fourth step
(No axial load and ultimate carrying capacty )
DRC segment (Positive)
Experimental result
Proposed model
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)
Curvature(1/m)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
N
m
)
Curvature(1/m)
Fourth step
(No axial load and ultimate carrying capacty )
DRC segment (Negative)
Experimental result
Proposed model

Fig.6.35 Bending moment-curvature curves of composite segments

Fig.6.36 shows the load-midspan deflection curves of the experiments and mechnical
analysis of the proposed model. It can be observed that the load-midspan deflection
response predicted using the proposed model is similar to the corresponding
experimental plots. Therefore, the formula and the mechanical model based on
Closed-composite segment have reasonable accuracy, when which are used in the
structural analysis of others type composite segment.

151
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
SSPC Positive bending
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Exprimental result
Proposed model

0 3 6 9 12
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Exprimental result
Proposed model
SSPC negative bending
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
DRC segment (Positive bending)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
Proposed model

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
DRC segment (Negative bending)
Proposed model
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

l
o
a
d
(
k
N
)

Fig.6.36 Load-deflection curves of composite segments at midspan

6.5. SUMMARY

From experimental results of composite segments (including SSPC segment, and
DRC segment), it can be seen that the failure modes of SSPC segment and DRC segment
behave differently from that of the Closed-composite segment, where the cracks are
progressive and through growth under positive bending. The relative slip occurs at
interface between concrete infill and the steel tube for SSPC segment and DRC segment.
The proposed finite element model using MSC.Marc shown in Chapter 4 is able to
simulate the mechanical behavior of composite segments (including SSPC segment, and
DRC segment).
Comparisons have been made between experimental results of SSPC segment and

152
DRC segment and the mechanical predictions of behavior using the proposed method.
Good agreement has been found and this indicates that the method is suitable for general
analysis of others type composite segments.

6.6. REFERENCES

1) Japan Steel Segment Association (JSSA), 1995. The report of development of Steel
Segment with Pre-filled Concrete(SSPC) . (In Japanese)
2) Masami, Shirato, et al.2003. Development of new composite segment and application
to the tunneling project. Journal of JSCE, No.728, 157-174.(In Japanese)

153
Chapter 7. Design of Composite Segment

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Following the planning works for the tunnel, the lining of a shield tunnel (hereinafter
called as segment rings) is designed according to the following sequence, as a rule [1]:
1) Adherence to specification, and code or standard.
The tunnel to be constructed should be designed according to the appropriate
specification standard, and code or standards, which are determined by the persons in
charge of the project or decided by discussion between these persons and the designers.
2) Decision on inner dimension of tunnel.
The inner diameter of the tunnel to be designed should be decided in consideration of
the space that is demanded by the functions of the tunnel. This space is determined by:
a) The construction gauge and car gauge, in the case of railway tunnels;
b) The traffic volume and number of lanes, in the case of road tunnels;
c) The discharge, in the case of water tunnels and sewer tunnels;
d) The kind of facilities and their dimensions, in the case of common ducts.
3) Determination of load condition.
The loads acting on the lining include earth pressure and water pressure, dead load,
reaction, surcharge and thrust force of shield jacks, etc. The designer should select the
cases critical to the design lining.
4) Determination of lining conditions.
The designer should decide on the lining conditions, such as dimension of the lining
(thickness), strength of material, arrangement of reinforcement, etc.
5) Computation of member forces. The designer should compute member forces such as
bending moment, axial force, and shear force of the lining, by using appropriate models
and design methods.
6) Safety check.
The designer should check the safety of the lining against the computed member
forces.
7) Review.

Design of Composite Segment

154
If the designed lining is not safe against design loads, the designer should change the
lining conditions and design lining. If the designed lining safe but not economical, the
designer should change the lining conditions and redesign the lining.
8. Approval of the design.
After the designer judges that the designed lining is safe, economical, and optimally
designed, a document of design should be approved by the persons in charge of the
project. In Fig.7.1, these steps are shown on a flow chart for designing tunnel linings.

No
No
Yes
Yes
Execution of construction works
Approval
Safty and ecnomical
Check of safety of lining
Computation of member forces
Model to compute member forces
Assumption of lining condition
(Thickness, etc.)
Load condition
Inner diameter Specification/code/standard to be used
Function/Capacity
to be given to tunnel
Alignment plane
/Profile cross section
Survey/Geology
Planning of tunnel project

Fig.7.1 Flow chart of shield tunnel lining design

155
It is well known that the segments production cost accounts for a large part of the
total shield tunnel construction cost. One of the effective methods is to design the
segments more efficiently for reducing the shield tunnel construction cost. The common
design method for shield segments is to determine firstly the load acting on the tunnel
lining, then determine the material and the cross sectional dimensions of the segments by
structural calculations. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the load accurately. In
structural calculation, the stress in each part of a segment is usually calculated with a
design model, by taking account of the structural property of segmental lining and
interaction between the ground and lining. According to the calculation result of member
forces, the safety of the most critical sections must be checked using the limit state
design method or the allowable stress design method. The safety factors should be based
on the ground loading and defined in accordance with the structural requirements and
codes (e.g. National standard specification for design and construction of concrete
structures). Therefore, construction procedure and performance of underground
structures should be linked with the factors of safety.
The following sections will describe the calculation of the loads, structural model,
and the material properties of the limit state design method or the allowable stress design
method. Finally, a design example of shield tunnel composite lining will be expressed.

7.2 CALCULATION OF LOADS

Overburden earth pressure or loosening earth pressure calculated by Terzaghis
formula is very useful and has generally been adopted as the vertical load acting on the
tunnel lining for the segment design on the basis of previous field measurement data.
Therefore, in this study, the loads are calculate using the Terzaghis formula and the
proposed method by guideline of design segment of JSCE[2].
To take the relationship of the outer diameter of a tunnel and overburden, soil
condition, and ground water level effects into account, the design earth pressure and
water pressure are calculated by guideline of design segment of JSCE[3] shown in
Fig.7.2.


156
*8 shown in Table.6.2
45

*7 range of the tunnel spring
*6 shown in Table.6.1
min
p
*5 is the minimum vertical load in design;
ie, 196kN/m
2
of JR code
c
N *4 is assumed as 8 for JSCE code
s
N *3 is assumed as 10
H *2 Determine the range of by the soil condition
between tunnel spring and tunnel crown
is the minimum overburden for considering the effect of arching;
ie, 1~2D of JSCE code; 1.0D of double track and
1.5D of single track of Metro code; 2.0D of JSWC
H *1
Calculation of
water pressure
Calculation of
earth pressure
based on Terzaghi's loosing earth
pressure by rock condition
based on Terzaghi's loosing earth
pressure by rock condition
*6 *5
1 min
(> )
e
p D p =
*6 *5
1 min
(> )
e
p D p = No
Soil-water separated
is safty than soil-water
integrated ?
Rock with cracks ?
Mixed sandy stratum ?
1
*5
min
full overburden
pressure(> )
e
p
p
=
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
Organizing soil condition for calculating
the ground reaction and lateral earth
pressure (determine k,)
*7
Calculation of
q
e1
,q
e2
1 1 1 2
1 1 1
2 2 2
v e w v
h e w
h e w
p p p p
q q q
q q q
= + =
= +
= +
Calculation of
k
END q
w2
q
e2
q
e1
q
w1
0
R
c
R
i
R
H
H
w
Ground reaction
W
a
t
e
r

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
E
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
E
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
W
a
t
e
r

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
90
o
g
p
g
Ground reaction by self weight
p
e2
Earth pressure
p
w2 Water pressure
Ground reaction
p
e1
Earth pressure
p
w1
Water pressure
Surcharge p
0
1 2 1 e w w
p p p g =
Vertical pressure at tunnel crown
cosidering ground reaction at crown
induced the bottom water pressure
2 1 1 w w w
p p p g + +
Check the bottom
water pressure
*8
1
*5
min
full overburden
pressure(> )
e
p
p
= 1
*5
min
Terzaghi's loosing
earth pressure(> )
e
p
p
=
A
1 1 2
, ,
w w w
p q q
Calculation of
Design ground water table
based on the others conditions
No Yes
*4
c
N N
*3
s
N N
No Yes
C
B
Calculation of
earth pressure
Calculation of
water pressure
No Yes
Sandy soil ?
Calculation of
earth pressure
Calculation of
water pressure
C
B A
No
Yes
Organizing soil condition for
calculating the vertical loads
(By c,,N)
*2
Yes
No
Sandy soil ?
Soil-water separated Soil-water integrated
*1
H H >
Overburden
Start

Fig.7.2 Flow chart of calculation of the loads [3]

157
Table 7.1. Earth pressure acting on the lining by Terzaghi[4]
Rock condition
Rock load factor
H(m)
Remarks

(1) Hard and intact 0
Simple support may be
required
(2) Hard, stratified
or schistose
0~0.25B
(3) Massive, moderately
jointed
0~0.5B
Simple support may be
required; nonuniformly
varying load
(4) Moderately blocky,
seamy and jointed
0~0.25B;0.35(B+H
t
)
lateral earth pressure is
equal to zero
(5) Very blocky and
seamy, shattered
(0.35~1.10)(B+H
t
)
lateral earth pressure is very
little or equal to zero;
(6) Completely crushed
but chemically intact
1.10(B+H
t
)
Inverts essential, arched
roof essential
(7) Squeezing rock
at moderate depth
(1.10~1.0)(B+H
t
)
(8) Squeezing rock at
great depth
(2.10~4.5)(B+H
t
)
Inverts essential in
excavation, arched roof
essential
(9) Swelling rock Up to 80m irrespective of (B+H
t
)
Inverts essential in
excavation, arched roof
essential
Note: 1) The table shows the rock load factor for overburden up to 1.5(B+H
t
)
B is width or span of opening; H
t
is height of opening

2) The table shows tunnel is located below groundwater table. If tunnel is located above
groundwater table, the value of (6) reduces 50%.

Table 7.2. Coefficient ( ) of lateral earth pressure and coefficient ( k ) of ground reaction [5]
k (MN/m
3
)
Type of soil
During grouted After grouted
N value
guideline
Very dense sandy soil 0.35-0.45 35.0-47.0 55.0-90.0 30 N
Dense sandy soil 0.45-0.50 21.5-35.0 28.0-55.0 15 30 N <
Medium, loose sandy soil 0.50-0.60 21.5 28.0 15 N <
Hard clayey soil 0.40-0.50 31.5 41.0 8 25 N
Medium and stiff clayey soil 0.50-0.60 13.0-31.5 15.0-46.0 4 8 N <
Soft clayey soil 0.60-0.70 3.5-7.0 3.8-7.5 2 4 N <
Very soft clayey soil 0.70-0.80 3.5 3.8 2 N <


158

0
p
1 v
w
H
H
WL
1
2B
45 /2 +
2
1
c
2
c
1
2
45 / 2 +
2
H
2
0
p
v
1 v
H
1
1
2B

(a) Single soil strata with ground water (b) Alternation of strata
Fig.7.3 Calculation model of loosing earth pressure

7.2.1 Earth Pressure and Water Pressure
Earth pressure and water pressure are calculate by flow chart of calculation of the
loads (Fig.7.2) shown in Table 7.3 and Table 7.4.
(1) Loosing earth pressure by Terzaghis formula
Loosing earth pressure for Single soil strata with ground water shown in Fig.7.3(a) is
calculated as
( )
( )
0 1 0 1
/ tan / tan 1 1
0
0
/
1
tan
K H B K H B
v
B c B
e p e
K

= + (7.1)
1 0
/ 4 / 2
cot
2
B R
+

=

(7.2)
where,
v
is loosing earth pressure;
0
K is Ratio between lateral earth pressure and
vertical earth pressure(equal to 1); is angle of internal friction of soil;
0
p is surcharge;
c is cohesion of soil; is unit weight of soil; and
0
R is outer radius of the lining.

159
(2) Loosing earth pressure of below ground water table
(a)
w
H H <
( )
( )
0 1 0 1
( ) / tan ( ) / tan 1 1
1 0
0
/
1
tan
w w
K H H B K H H B
v
B c B
e p e
K

= + (7.3)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1
0 1 0 1
/ tan / tan 1 1
1
0
( ) / tan ( ) / tan / tan 1 1
0
0
/ tan 1 1
0
/ tan / tan 1 1
0
0
/
1
tan
/
1
tan
/
1
tan
/
1
tan
w w
w w w
w
w
K H B K H B
v v
K H H B K H H B K H B
K H B
K H B K H B
B c B
e e
K
B c B
e p e e
K
B c B
e
K
B c B
e p e
K

= +

= +

+

= +
( )
( )
0 1 0 1
( ) / tan / tan 1 1
0
/
1
tan
w w
K H H B K H B
B c B
e e
K

+
(7.4)
(b)
w
H H
( )
( )
0 1 0 1
/ tan / tan 1 1
0
0
/
1
tan
K H B K H B
v
B c B
e p e
K

= + (7.5)
where,
1 0
/ 4 / 2
cot
2
B R
+

=

.
(3) Loosing earth pressure for alternation of strata
Loosing earth pressure of alternation of strata shown in Fig.7.3(b) is calculated as
( )
( )
0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
/ tan / tan 1 1 1 1
1 0
0 1
/
1
tan
K H B K H B
v
B c B
e p e
K

= + (7.6)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
0 2 1 2 0 2 1 2
0 2 1 2
0 1 1 1 0 2 1 2
0 1 1 2 2 1
/ tan / tan 1 2 2 1
1 1
0 2
/ tan 1 2 2 1
0 2
/ tan / tan 1 1 1 1
0 1
( tan tan ) /
0
/
1
tan
/
1
tan
/
1 1
tan
K H B K H B
v v
K H B
K H B K H B
K H H B
B c B
e e
K
B c B
e
K
B c B
e e
K
p e

= +
+
+
(7.7)


160
Table 7.3. Examples of notation used in the guidelines (Soil condition) [3]
1
H H

1
H H <

Sandy stratum is main stratum Clayey stratum is main stratum
a) Loosing sandy soil
N<Ns
b) Medium stiff sandy soil
H
H
w
HHH
HHHH
H
w
H
w
H
w
a) Soft and medium
clayey soil
N<Nc
b) Hard clayey soil
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
p
0
WL WL
WL WL
WL WL WL
WL WL WL
WL WL WL WL
Loosing sandy soil Medium stiff sandy soil
Soft and medium
clayey soil
Hard clayey soil
Single
soil
stratum
Alternation
of soil
strata
H
H
H
H
HH
H
H H
H
H
H
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
w
H
wH
w

II
(1)
H H <
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
H H
s
N N
c
N N
H H

Note: 1) H is the minimum overburden for considering reduced earth pressure;
2) 10
s
N = or 8
s
N = of design guideline of JSCE;
3)
s
is coefficient of lateral earth pressure of sandy soil;
s
k is coefficient of subgrade reaction of
sandy soil;
c
is coefficient of lateral earth pressure of clayey soil;
c
k is coefficient of subgrade
reaction of clayey soil;
4) If H H < , the earth pressure is calculate by the full overburden.

161
Table 7.4. Examples of notation used in the guidelines [3]
I Single soil stratum

(1) H H < (2) H H
a) Loosing sandy
soil
s
N N <
1 0
( )
e w w
p H H H p = + +
1 1
( / 2)
e s e
q p t = +
{ }
2 1
( / 2 2 )
e s e c
q p t R = + +
1 w w w
p H =
1
( / 2)
w w w
q H t = +
2
( / 2 2 )
w w w c
q H t R = + +
subgrade reaction
s
k =
In according with
A-a)- I-(1)
A.
Sandy
stratum
is
main
stratum
b) Medium
stiff sandy soil
s
N N
In according with
A-a)- I-(1)
From Terzaghis formula
( )
( )
( )
( )
0 1
0 1 0 1
0 1
/ tan *1 1 1
1
0
( ) / tan / tan 1 1
0
/ tan
0
/
1
tan
/
1
tan
w
w w
K H B
e
K H H B K H B
K H B
B c B
p e
K
B c B
e e
K
p e
+
+
1 0
/ 4 / 2
cot
2
B R
+
=

a) Soft and
medium clayey
soil
c
N N <
1 0 e
p H p = +
1 1
( / 2)
e c e
q p t = +
{ }
2 1
( / 2 2 )
e c e c
q p t R = + +
subgrade reaction
c
k =
In according with
B-a)- I-(1)
B.
Clayey
stratum
is
main
stratum
b) Hard clayey
soil
c
N N
n according with
B-a)- I-(1)
1 e
p H =
1 1
( / 2)
e c e
q p t = +
{ }
2 1
( / 2 2 )
e c e c
q p t R = + +
subgrade reaction
c
k =
is reduced factor shown in Table.7.1
Note: *1) if
2 1 1 w e w
p p p g > + + , calculation of earth pressure at crown should be considered the effect
of the subgrade reaction induced the bottom water pressure; Existing ground water and
alternation of soil strata, loosing earth pressure is given by Eqs.(7.3)-(7.7).
Continue


162
Continue Table 7.4.
II Alternation of soil strata

(1) (2) (3)
a)Loosing
sandy
soil
s
N N <
In according with
A-a)- I-(1)
Coefficient of lateral earth
pressure of sandy soil and
coefficient of subgrade reaction
of sandy soil are equal to
c
and
c
k , respectively; others
calculation in according with
A-a)- I-(1)
In according with
A-a)- I-(1)
A
.

S
a
n
d
y

s
t
r
a
t
u
m

i
s

m
a
i
n

s
t
r
a
t
u
m

b) Medium
stiff
sandy
soil
s
N N
1 e
p is equal to the
loosing earth
pressure of the
above side of clayey
stratum adding earth
pressure of the
overburden of
clayey stratum
c
and
c
k , respectively ; others
calculation in according with
A-b)- I-(2)
In according with
A-b)- I-(2)
a) Soft and
medium
clayey
soil
c
N N <
In according with
B-a)- I-(1)
1 0 e
p H p = +
*2
1 1
( / 2)
e s e w w
q p H t = +
1 *2
2
( / 2 2 )
e w w
e s
c
p H
q
t R
+
=

+

*2
1
( / 2)
w w w
q H t = +
*2
2
( / 2 2 )
w w w c
q H t R = + +
subgrade reaction
s
k =
In according with
B-a)- I-(1)
B
.

C
l
a
y
e
y

s
t
r
a
t
u
m

i
s

m
a
i
n

s
t
r
a
t
u
m

b) Hard
clayey
Soil
*3

c
N N
In according with
B-b)- I-(1)
c
and
c
k , others calculation in
according with B-b)- II-(1)
1 e
p H =
*2
1 1
( / 2)
e s e w w
q p H t = +

1 *2
2
( / 2 2 )
e w w
e s
c
p H
q
t R
+
=

+

*2
1
( / 2)
w w w
q H t = +
*2
2
( / 2 2 )
w w w c
q H t R = + +
subgrade reaction
s
k =
Note: *2) Determining water pressure should be careful in alternation of soil strata. In case, soil-water
integrated should be considered for the safety;
*3) if considering water pressure is safety, full water pressure is adopted by soil-water separated.

163
7.2.2 Self Weight
Self weight is the vertical load acting along the centroid of the cross section of tunnel
and is calculated as
2
c
W
g
R
= (7.8)
where W is weight of lining per meter in longitudinal direction;
c
R is radius of controid
of the lining.

7.2.3 Surcharge
The surcharge increases earth pressure acting on the lining. The following act on the
lining as the surcharge:
1) Road traffic load,
2) Railway traffic load, and
3) Weight of buildings.

7.3 STRUCTURAL CALCULATION

The structural models for the segmental lining are shown in Fig.7.4. The segments
are assembled in a staggered pattern to compensate for the decrease in the bending
rigidity of the circumferential joint. The multiple hinge ring model can not be applied.
Uniform rigidity ring Multi-hinge ring Beam-spring Shell-spring
Hinge
c
L
c
L
Rotation spring
Shear spring
at radial direction
Axial spring at
circumferential direction
Longitudinal spring
Shear spring
at radial direction
Axial spring at
circumferential direction
Rotation spring
Shear spring
Rotation spring
Rotation spring
Longitudinal spring
Shear spring
Longitudinal joint
Fig.7.4 Structural models of the segmental lining


164
As present, the uniform rigidity ring model has been applied. The circumferential
joint is assumed to have the same rigidity as that of the segment, the moment for the
design of joint is overestimated, and that occurring at the segment is not calculated
correctly. Therefore, it is difficult to design the bending moment at the joint area.
An average uniform rigidity ring model was proposed in order to make up for the
disadvantage of the uniform rigidity ring model. In this model, the ratio between the
rigidity of a ring with joints and that without any joints is assumed to be , where is
the effective ratio of the bending rigidity. In poor ground condition, the effect of on
member forces is unobvious, but in good ground condition, this effect is very obvious. In
addition, a bending moment whose magnitude is additional rate times that of the
segment is considered to be distributed to the adjacent segment in the joint area (Fig.7.5).
At this point, the values of the bending moments used for the segment and the joint are
assumed to be M(1+ ) and M(1- ) , respectively. Even in this model, the effective
ratio of the bending rigidity ( ) is described as being universally determined by the
profile of the joint and the shape and the size of the segment. However, if all joint
surfaces are compressed, the rigidity of the circumferential joint with the same rigidity
of the segment varies with the stress conditions. Therefore, changes depending on
the load. Although the distribution of bending moment near the circumferential joints is
considered using the additional rate ( ), the bending moment obviously varies with the
bending rigidity of the circumferential joint. The actual structural property is not
considered shown in Fig.7.5, where the moment between the two rings is simply
distributed along the joint area. It is impossible to calculate actual distribution of the
bending moment by using this model.

Fig.7.5 Concept of the additional rate of bending rigidity [2]

M: Bending moment calculated by uniform ring
with EI
M
0
: Design bending moment for main cross
section; ( )
0 2
M M+M 1 M = = +
M
1
: Design bending moment for circumferential
section; ( )
1 2
M M-M 1 M = =
M
2
: Bending moment transferred to adjacent
rings due to staggered arrangement
Width
2
/ 2 M
2
/ 2 M
1
M
2
/ 2 M
2
/ 2 M

165
For the above reason, the beam-spring model and the shell-spring were proposed
and applied in design of segmental lining nowadays. In the beam spring model,
segments are modeled using beams. The circumferential joints are modeled using the
rotation of springs and their rigidities are expressed by the constants of the springs
concerning the bending moments. The longitudinal joints are modeled using shear
springs to simulate the relative displacement occurring between the two adjacent rings in
the longitudinal direction. However, the bending moment distribution along the width of
a ring is non-uniform due to the split effect of the longitudinal joints. Therefore, the
shell-spring model is applied, in which tunnel lining is modeled using shell, and the
joints are modeled using springs.

7.3.1 Elastic Equation Method
The tunnel is assumed to be made of a rigid material and the soil reaction is
determined to be independent of the tunnel deformation caused by active loads. This
model is called the conventional model/ the modified conventional model shown in
Fig.7.2, and the calculations of member force based on elastic equation method is given
by Table 7.5

Table 7.5. Equations of member forces for conventional model/ modified conventional model[3]
Load Bending moment Axial force Shear force
Uniform load in
vertical direction
1 1
( )
e w
p p +
2
1 1
1
(1 2S)( )
4
e w c
M p p R = +
1 1
( ) S2
e w c
N p p R = +
1 1
( ) SC
e w c
Q p p R = +
Uniform load in lateral
direction
1 1
( )
e w
q q +
2
1 1
1
(1 2C2)( )
4
e w c
M q q R = +
1 1
( ) C2
e w c
N q q R = +
1 1
( ) SC
e w c
Q q q R = +
Triangularly varying
load in lateral direction
2 2 1 1
( )
e w e w
q q q q +
2
2 2 1 1
1
(6 3C 12C2 4C3)
48
( )
e w e w c
M
q q q q R
= +
+

2 2 1 1
1
(C 8C2 4C3)
16
( )
e w e w c
N
q q q q R
= +
+
2 2 1 1
1
(S 8SC 4SC2)
16
( )
e w e w c
Q
q q q q R
= +
+
Subgrade reaction in
lateral direction
( ) k
0
4
<
2
(0.2346 0.3536C)
c
M k R =
0
4
<
0.3536C
c
N k R =
0
4
<
0.3536S
c
Q k R =


166
4 2

2
( 0.3487 0.5S2
+0.2357C3)
c
M
k R
= +

4 2

( 0.7071C C2
+0.7071S2C)
c
N
k R
= +

4 2

(SC 0.7071C2S)
c
Q k R =
Dead load ( ) g
0
2

2
3 5
( S C)
8 6
c
M gR =
2

2
( )S
8
5
C S2
6 2
c
M gR

+

=

0
2

1
( S C)
6
c
N gR =

2

( S+ S+ S2
1
C)
6
c
N
gR
=

0
2

1
( C S)
6
c
Q gR =

2

( )
1
C SC C
6
c
Q gR

=

Lateral displacement
at spring
( )
No considering soil reaction due to dead weight of tunnel lining
{ }
( )
4
1 1 1 1 2 2
4
2( ) ( ) ( )
24 0.0454
e w e w e w c
c
p p q q q q R
EI kR
+ + +
=
+

Considering soil reaction due to dead weight of tunnel lining
{ }
( )
4
1 1 1 1 2 2
4
2( ) ( ) ( )
24 0.0454
e w e w e w c
c
p p q q q q g R
EI kR

+ + + +
=
+

Where EI is bending rigidity of segment per unit width
Note: 1) is angle from crown; S=sin ,
2
S2=sin ,
3
S3=sin ; C=cos ,
2
C2=cos ,
3
C3=cos ;
2) The values of effective ratio of the bending rigidity of and additional rate of are not clear,
and the design examples are shown in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6. Effective ratio of the bending rigidity of and additional rate of [3]
Segment type Joint type
Plate type 0.1~0.3 0.5~0.7
RC segment(Flat type) Pin
(Box type) (0.3~0.5) (0.3~0.6)
RC segment(Box type) Bolt --- ---
Steel and ductile cast iron segment
Bolt 0.5~0.7 0.1~0.3
Note: 1) For conventional model, 1 = , 0 =

167
7.3.2 Calculation of Shell-Spring Model
The constants of the springs of the joints (circumferential joint and longitudinal
joint) and soil reaction should be determined, when Beam-Spring Model and
Shell-Spring Model are used to calculate the shield tunnel structure. In general, these
constants are derived from the experimental results, theoretical calculation, and FEM. In
this study, the calculation method of the constants of these springs proposed by Koizumi,
Murakami, and Kimura[6-9] are described in the following sections, which is applied in
the segment design in Japan, and Moleman software package(Structural analysis
program for underground structure).

(a) Spring constant of circumferential joint
Springs of circumferential joint consist of axial spring with rigidity of
c
a
k , shear
spring of rigidity of
c
s
k , and rotational spring with rigidity of
c
k
. The calculation
model of circumferential joint is shown in Figs.7.6 and 7.7.
The rigidity of axial spring
c
a
k is given by
2
2 (Tightening)
2
2
(Separated)
2
(In compression)
b pu
pl
b pu
c
a b pu
b pu
k k
k
k k
k k k
k k
(7.9)
where
b
k is the axial rigidity of bolt;
pu
k is the axial rigidity of joint plate in
compression;
pl
k is the axial rigidity of joint plate considering the initial tightening bolt
induced compressive strain released; and the subscript and superscript of
c
a
k ,
c
s
k , and
c
k
express the directions and joint location, respectively.

2
t
T/2 T/2
T/2 T/2
k
pu
k
pu
k
pL
k
b
k
pu
k
b
k
pu
(a) Tightening (b) Separated (a) Tightening (b) Separated

Fig.7.6 Stress condition of joint member Fig.7.7 Modeled joint member by springs


168
lH
le
ln l1
Ae
A
b1
Nut
Bolt

Fig.7.8 Bolt and nut

1
1
1
(Single bolt)

(Double bolts)
e
e
n e
b
b
e
n e
EA
A
l l l
A
k
EA
l l l
+ +
+ +
(7.10)
where E is elastic modulus of a bolt; 0.6
e H
l l = ; and
1
l ,
n
l ,
H
l ,
e
A , and
1 b
A is shown in
Fig.7.8.
pu
k and
pl
k are calculated as for single bolt
Single bolt
0.5
0 Double bolts
u
w pu
EA
t t k

+ =

(7.11)
Single bolt

2
Double bolts
l
pl
EA
t
k
EA
t
(7.12)
where
2 2
( )
u u a
A r r = ;
2 2
( )
l l a
A r r = ;
2 2
( )
e a
A r r = ; t is the thickness of a joint
plate;
w
t is the thickness of a washer; /12
u w
r r t = + ; / 3
l w
r r t = + ; / 6
e w
r r t = + ;
a
r is the
radius of a bolt hole; and
w
r is the radius of a washer.
Shear spring of rigidity of
c
s
k can be assumed as infinite, if the relative slip induced
the shear force is not occurring, when friction force from initial tightening of a bolt is
very large.

169
The rotational spring with rigidity of
c
k
is given by
sep
sep
max sep
max sep
(Tightening)

(Separated)
c
M
k
M M
(7.13)
sep 0
(2 )
2( / 3)
(2 )
b pu pl b pu
bo
pl b pu
k k k k k
M d y N
k k k
+ +
=
+
(7.14)
sep
sep
0
2
d y
(7.15)
where, d is distance between the central axial of a circumferential bolt and the upper
extreme of a joint plate;
0
y is the neutral axis depth; and
bo
N is the initial tightening
force of a bolt.
The semi-experiential value of
c
k
is given by Koizumi based experimental study

[7].
*

c c c
R
k k
EI

= (7.16)
where, EI is the bending rigidity of a segment;
c
R is radius of controid of the lining;
* c
k
is a dimensionless parameter,
* 2
10
c
k
> (uniform rigidity ring),

*
0.1 ~10
c
k
= (ring
with joints),
* 3
10
c
k

< (multiple hinge ring).

(b) Spring constant of longitudinal joint
Springs of longitudinal joint consist of axial spring with rigidity of
L
a
k , shear spring
of rigidity of
L
s
k , and rotational spring with rigidity of
L
k
.
The rigidity of axial spring
L
a
k in longitudinal direction is given by
{ }
96 (1 )
(In tension)
192 (1 )
(In compression)
c
a l
c L
a c a
Dk h
k l D e k

+ + =

(7.17)
where
3
12(1 )
e
b t
D E
;
c
l is the length of a main girder (joint plate);
l
h is distance
between the central axial of a longitudinal bolt and the lower extreme of a main girder;
e is eccentricity between center of working force and the lower extreme of a main


170
girder; is Poisson ratio of a main girder; the effective width of
e
b , and the
dimensional parameter are calculated as
( ) 2 / 6
e w
b r t = + (7.18)
3 3
3 3
3
3
( )
(for steel segmental ring)
64
(for RC segmental ring)
64
c u l
u l
c
l
l h h
h h
l
h
(7.19)
where
u
h is distance from the central axial of a longitudinal bolt and the upper extreme
of a main girder.
Shear spring of rigidity of
L
s
k can be assumed as infinite, if the relative slip
between the two adjacent rings induced the shear force is not occurring, when friction
force from initial tightening of a bolt is very large.
The rotational spring with rigidity of
L
k
is given by
( ) ( )
2
0 0
(for steel segmental ring)
2

/ 3
(for RC segmental ring)
2
L
a
L
L
a
d k
k
d y d y k
(7.13)
where, d is distance between the central axial of a longitudinal bolt and the upper
extreme of a main girder; and
0
y is the neutral axis depth.

(c) Spring constant of soil reaction
Spring constant of soil reaction shown in Table 7.7 is given by Kimura.
Table 7.7. Spring constant of soil reaction [9]
Passive soil reaction spring
0
3
(1 )(5 6 )
g
rc
g g
E
K
R
=
+

Active soil reaction spring
, / 2.0
rt rc rc
K K K =
Spring constant of soil
reaction
Tangential soil reaction spring
, / 3.0
t rc rc
K K K =

g
E is modulus of deformation of soil;
0
R is outer radius of the lining;
g
is Poisson ratio of
soil.

171
7.4 CHECK OF SAFETY OF SEGMENTAL LINING

According to the calculation result of member forces, the safety of the most critical
sections must be checked using the limit state design method or the allowable stress
design method. These are as follows:
1) Section with the maximum positive moment.
2) Section with the maximum negative moment.
3) Section with the maximum axial force.
The safety of the lining against the thrust force of the shield jacks should be checked.

7.4.1 Allowable Stress Design Method
The allowable stresses in lining materials are described as the following sections [2].

(a) Concrete for segment
Allowable stresses of concrete for segment are shown in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8. Allowable stresses of concrete for segment (N/mm
2
) [2]
Characteristic compressive strength
ck
42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Allowable compressive stress for bending moment
ca
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Allowable standard shear
stress
Shear stress by bending
1)

a
0.73 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.82
Allowable bond stress(deformed bar)
0
2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3
Overall loading
ba
15 16 17 18 18 20 21
Allowable carrying stress
Local loading
2)

ba
1/ 2.8
ba ck a
A A and
ba ck

Note: 1)
a
is calculated by the effective height for a segment of d=20cm and tensional reinforcement ratio=1%,
therefore,
a
must be adjusted as follows:
a) Adjustment for different effective height and tensional reinforcement ratio
The adjusting method can be applied by multiplying a coefficient of , is calculated by the
following formula:
4
3
20/
w
p d = , where
w
p is tensional reinforcement ratio(%);d is effective height(cm)
When 3.3%
w
p , d 20cm , and d 20cm < , d is equal to 20cm.
b) Addition of allowable shear stress
When the combined bending moment and axial compressive force apply on a segment, allowable shear
stress can be calculated by multiplying a coefficient of
n
,
n
is calculated by the following formula:
0
1 / 2
n d
M M = + ; where
d
M is design bending moment; and
0
M is bending moment
neglecting tensional concrete.
2) A is the influenced area of the applying load; and A
0
is area of the applying load.
3) / 2.8 1
ca ck
= + (N/mm2) for bending moment; / 2.8
ca ck
= (N/mm2) for overall loading.[10]


172
(b) Cast-in-place reinforced concrete
Allowable stresses of cast-in-place reinforced concrete are shown in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9. Allowable stresses of cast-in-place reinforced concrete (N/mm
2
) [2]
ck
18 21 24 27 30
3)

ca
7 8 18 19 20
Allowable standard shear
stress
Shear stress by bending
1)

a
0.55 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.65
0
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Overall loading
ba
6 7 8 9 10
Local loading
2)

ba
1/ 3
ba ck a
A A and
ba ck

Note: 1)
a
is calculated by the effective height for a segment of d=20cm and tensional reinforcement ratio=1%,
the adjustment of
a
is the same with the above segment concrete;
2) A and A
0
are the same with the above segment concrete;
3) / 3 1
ca ck
= + (N/mm2) for bending moment; / 3
ca ck
= (N/mm2) for overall loading.[10]

(c) Cast-in-place plain concrete
Allowable stresses of cast-in-place plain concrete are shown in Table 7.10.
Table 7.10. Allowable stresses of cast-in-place plain concrete (N/mm
2
) [2]
ck
18 21 24 27 30
3)

ca
5.5 6.3 7.0 7.8 8.5
Allowable tensional stress
3)

ta
0.72 0.80 0.87 0.95 1.00
0
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Overall loading
ba
6 7 8 9 10
Local loading
2)

ba
1/ 3
ba ck a
A A and
ba ck

Note: 2) A and A
0
3) / 4 1
ca ck
= + (N/mm
2
) for bending moment; / 3
ca ck
= (N/mm
2
) for overall loading;
( )
2/ 3
0.42 / 4
ta ck
= (N/mm
2
) [10]

(d) Reinforcement
Allowable stresses of reinforcement are shown in Table 7.11.
Table 7.11. Allowable stresses of reinforcement (N/mm
2
) [2]
Category of reinforcement SR235 SR295 SR295 A,B SD345 SD390
Allowable stress 140 180 180 200 220
For increasing durability of tunnel, the value of allowable stress is lower that characteristic allowable stress.

173
(e) Steel material and welded part
Allowable stresses of steel and welds are shown in Table 7.12-7.14. Values of no
buckling and buckling are shown in Table 7.12 and Table 7.13, respectively. Allowable
stresses for local buckling of steel segment are shown in Table 7.14.
Table 7.12. Allowable stresses of steel material and welds (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of steel

Type of stress
SS400
SM400
SMA400
STK400
SM 490
STK490
SM 490
Y
Axial stress Allowable tensional stress
sta
Bending stress
Axial stress Allowable compressive
stress
Bending stress
160 215 240
Allowable shear stress 90 125 140
Steel
material
structure
Allowable carrying stress Between steel material 220 300 336
Allowable tensional stress
Allowable compressive stress
160 215 340
Groove welding
Allowable shear stress 90 125 140
Allowable tensional stress,
compressive stress in bead
160 215 240
Factory
welding
Fillet welding
Allowable tensional stress,
compressive stress and shear
stress about throat depth
90 125 140
Welded
part
Site welding

The design allowable stress is
equal to 90% the above value.
Table 7.13. Allowable buckling stresses (N/mm
2
) [2]
SS400,SM400
SMA400, STK400
SM 490
STK490
SM 490 Y
Axial
stress
0 9 l r < :
sta
9 130 l r < :
0.91( 9)
sca
l r
0 8 l r < :
sta
8 115 l r < :
1.42( 8)
sca
l r
0 8 l r < :
sta

8 105 l r < :
1.68( 8)
sca
l r
i)
Compressive
Stress,
overall area
Bending
stress
(1) For bending around strong axis, equivalent slenderness ratio is calculated by
the following formula: ( )
e
l r F l b = , where, 12 2 / F = + for
I-shaped cross section, and for box-shaped cross section:
0
< : 0 F = ;
0
1 < :
0 0
1.05( ) /(1 ) 3 1 F b l = + ;
1 2 < : 0.74 (3 )( 1) F b l = + + ;
2 : 1.28 (3 ) F b l = + ;
0
(14 12 ) /(5 21 ) = + +
For U-shaped cross section, 1.1 12 2 / F = +
(2) For bending around weak axis:
sca

ii)
Note: 1) in i) l is length of buckling member; r is radius of rotation of the whole cross sectional area
2) in ii) l is distance between points fixed on the flange; b is width of the flange for I-shaped cross section,
and distance between web plates for box-shaped and U-shaped cross section; is ratio of the thickness of a
flange to the thickness of a web plate; and is ratio of the height of a web plate to the thickness of a flange.


174
Table 7.14. Allowable stresses for local buckling of steel segment (N/mm
2
) [2]
Undisturbed from local buckling Under the influence local buckling Type of steel
Ratio of width and
thickness
Allowable stress
(N/mm
2
)
Ratio of width and
thickness
Allowable stress
(N/mm
2
)
SS400,
SM400
13.1
r r
h
t f K

160
13.1 16
r r
h
t f K

2
27200
r r
t f K
h

SM490 A
11.2
r r
h
t f K

215
11.2 16
r r
h
t f K

2
27200
r r
t f K
h

2
0.65 0.13 1.0 f = + + ;
1 2
1

= (
1
and
2
are the minimum edge stress and the maximum edge
stress applied to the main girder );
2
2.33
1.0
( )
r
r
K
l h
= +
Where,
r
l is length of the buckling of main girder(mm); h is height of main girder(mm);
r
t is thickness of
main girder(mm); and
r
K is buckling coefficient.

(f) Spheroidal graphite cast iron
Allowable stresses of spheroidal graphite cast iron are shown in Table 7.15-7.17.
Values of no buckling and buckling are shown in Table 7.15 and Table 7.16, respectively.
Allowable stresses for local buckling of ductile cast iron segment are shown in Table
7.17.
Table 7.15. Allowable stresses of spheroidal graphite cast iron (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of cast iron
Type of stress
FCD 450-10 FCD 500-7
Allowable tensional stress for bending moment 170 190
Allowable compressive stress for bending moment 200 220
Allowable shear stress 110 130
Table 7.16. Allowable stresses for buckling of spheroidal graphite cast iron (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of cast iron
Type of stress
FCD 450-10 FCD 500-7
Allowable axial stress
0 7 l r < : 200
7 105 l r < :
200 1.42( 7) l r
0 7 l r < : 220
7 100 l r < :
220 1.63( 7) l r
Note: l is length of buckling member; r is radius of rotation of the whole cross sectional area

175
Table 7.17. Allowable stresses for local buckling of ductile cast iron segment (N/mm2) [2]
Undisturbed from local buckling Under the influence local buckling
Type of steel
Ratio of width and
thickness
Allowable stress
(N/mm
2
)
Ratio of width and
thickness
Allowable stress
(N/mm
2
)
FCD 450-10
15.2
r
h
t f K

200
15.2 21.7
r
h
t f K

2
46500
r
t f K
h

FCD 500-7
14.3
r
h
t f K

220
14.3 20.5
r
h
t f K

2
46500
r
t f K
h

2
0.65 0.13 1.0 f = + + ;
1 2
1

= (
1
and
2
2
2 2 4 2
4 40 15 20
3
K

= + + ( 2.26 ),
min
2.37 K = ( 2.26 = );
Where,
r
l is length of the buckling of main girder (mm); h is height of main girder (mm);
r
t is thickness of
main girder (mm); and K is buckling coefficient;
r
l h = ; and is Poissons ratio of cast iron.

(g) Steel casting for welded structure
Allowable stresses of steel casting for welded structure are shown in Table 7.18.
Table 7.18. Allowable stresses of steel casting for welded structure (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of steel
Type of stress
SCW 480
Allowable tensional stress for bending moment 180
Allowable compressive stress for bending moment 180
Allowable shear stress 100

(h) Bolt
Allowable stresses of bolt are shown in Table 7.19.
Table 7.19. Allowable stresses of bolt (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of bolt
Type of stress
46 68 88 109
Allowable tensional stress 120 210 290 380
Allowable shear stress 90 150 200 270


176
7.4.2 Limit State Design Method

(1) Design Values of Material
Characteristic values of the strength in lining materials are described as the following
sections [2].

(a) Concrete for segment
Characteristic values of the strength of concrete for segment are shown in Table 7.20.
Table 7.20. Characteristic values of the strength of concrete for segment (N/mm
2
) [2]
ck
f 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Tensional strength
tk
f 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5
Bending crack strength
1)

bck
f 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3
Bond strength (deformed bar)
bok
f 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2
Carrying strength (Overall loading)
ak
f 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Carrying strength (Local loading
2)
)
ak
f
ak ck
f f = , 2
a
A A = <
Note: 1)
bok
f is calculated by the following formula based on the assumptions that the thickness of segment is
250mm and nominal largest size of coarse aggregate is 20mm.

0 1 bok b b tk
f k k f = ,
0
1
1
0.85 4.5( / )
b
ch
k
h l
= +
+
,
1
0.55
0.4
/1000
b
k
h
= ,
2
1000 /
ch F c tk
l G E f =
Where,
0b
k is a factor of concrete softening;
1b
k is a factor of crack strength decreasing from drying
and heat of hydration etc. h is thickness of member(mm)>200;
ch
l is characteristic length(mm);
F
G is fracture energy(N/mm);
c
E is elastic modulus of concrete(kN/mm
2
); and
tk
f is characteristic
tensional strength of concrete(kN/mm
2
).

F
G can be calculated by the following formula for plain concrete
3 3
max
1/100
F ck
G d f =
Where,
max
d is nominal largest size of coarse aggregate; and
ck
f is characteristic compressive
strength of concrete(kN/mm
2
).
2) A is the influenced area of the applying load; and A
0
is area of the applying load shown in the
following Figure.
3)
2/ 3
0.23( )
tk ck
f f = (N/mm2); and
2/ 3
0.28( ) 4.2
bok ck
f f = (N/mm2)[10].
2
a
A r =
2
1
( ) A r r = +
1 2 a
A b b =
1 1 2 2
( 2 ) ( 2 ) A b c b c = + +
c2 c2 b2
c
1
b
1
c
1
2
r
r
1

177
(b) Cast-in-place reinforced concrete
Characteristic values of the strength of cast-in-place reinforced concrete are shown
in Table 7.21.
Table 7.21. Characteristic values of the strength of cast-in-place reinforced concrete (N/mm
2
) [2]
ck
f 18 21 24 27 30
Tensional strength
tk
f 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2
Bending crack strength
1)

bck
f 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2
Bond strength (deformed bar)
bok
f 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7
Carrying strength (Overall loading)
ak
f 18 21 24 27 30
Carrying strength (Local loading
2)
)
ak
f
ak ck
f f = , 2
a
A A = <
Note: 1)
bok
f is calculated by the following formula based on the assumptions that the thickness of segment is
250mm and nominal largest size of coarse aggregate is 20mm. The calculation of
bok
f is the same
with the above segment concrete;
2) A and A
0
3)
2/ 3
0.23( )
tk ck
f f = (N/mm2); and
2/ 3
0.28( ) 4.2
bok ck
f f = (N/mm2)[10].

(c) Reinforcement
Characteristic values of the strength of reinforcement are shown in Table 7.22.
Table 7.22. Characteristic values of the strength of reinforcement (N/mm
2
) [2]
Category of reinforcement SR235 SR295 SR295 A,B SD345 SD390
Tensional yield strength
yk
f
235 295 295 345 390
Compressive yield strength
yk
f
235 295 295 345 390
Shear yield strength
vyk
f 1)
135 170 170 195 225
Note: 1)
3
yk
vyk
f
f =

(d) Steel material and welded part
Characteristic values of the strength of steel and welds are shown in Table 7.23-7.25.
Values of no buckling and buckling are shown in Table 7.23 and Table 7.24, respectively.
Characteristic values of the strength for local buckling of steel segment are shown in
Table 7.25.


178
Table 7.23. Characteristic values of the strength of steel material and welds (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of steel

Type of stress
SS400
SM400
SMA400
STK400
SM 490
STK490

SM 490Y
SMA490
SM 520
SM570
SMA570
yk
f
235 315 355 450
yk
f
235 315 355 450
vyk
f
(overall area)
135 180 205 260
Steel material structure
Carrying strength
ak
f (between
steel material)
350 470 530 675
yk
f
yk
f
235 315 355 450
Groove
welding
vyk
f
(overall area)
135 180 205 260
Tensional and compressive
yield strength in bead
235 315 355 450
Factory
welding
Fillet
welding
Tensional , compressive and
shear yield strength about
throat depth
135 180 205 260
Welded
part
Site welding

The design allowable stress is equal to 90%
the above value.
Table 7.24. Characteristic values of steel buckling (N/mm
2
) [2]
SS400,SM400
SMA400, STK400
SM 490
STK490
SM 490Y SMA490
SM 520
SM570
SMA570
Axial
strength
0 9 l r < :
yk
f
9 130 l r < :
1.33( 9)
yk
f l r
0 8 l r < :
yk
f
8 115 l r < :
2.06( 8)
yk
f l r
0 8 l r < :
yk
f
8 105 l r < :
2.46( 8)
yk
f l r
0 7 l r < :
yk
f
7 95 l r < :
3.51( 7)
yk
f l r
i)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

y
i
e
l
d

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

O
v
e
r
a
l
l

a
r
e
a

Bending
strength
(1) For bending around strong axis, equivalent slenderness ratio is calculated by the
following formula: ( )
e
l r F l b = , where, 12 2 / F = + for I-shaped cross
section, and for box-shaped cross section:
0
< : 0 F = ;
0
1 < :
0 0
1.05( ) /(1 ) 3 1 F b l = + ;
1 2 < : 0.74 (3 )( 1) F b l = + + ;
2 : 1.28 (3 ) F b l = + ;
0
(14 12 ) /(5 21 ) = + +
For U-shaped cross section, 1.1 12 2 / F = +
(2) For bending around weak axis:
yk
f
ii)
Note: 1) in i) l is length of buckling member; r is radius of rotation of the whole cross sectional area
2) in ii) l is distance between points fixed on the flange; b is width of the flange for I-shaped cross section,
and distance between web plates for box-shaped and U-shaped cross section; is ratio of the thickness of a
flange to the thickness of a web plate; and is ratio of the height of a web plate to the thickness of a flange.

179
Table 7.25. Characteristic values for local buckling of steel segment (N/mm
2
) [2]
Undisturbed from local buckling Under the influence local buckling Type of steel
Ratio of width and
thickness
Strength
(N/mm
2
)
Ratio of width and
thickness
Strength
(N/mm
2
)
SS400,
SM400
13.1
r r
h
t f K

235
13.1 16
r r
h
t f K

2
40800
r r
t f K
h

SM490
11.2
r r
h
t f K

315
11.2 16
r r
h
t f K

2
40800
r r
t f K
h

2
0.65 0.13 1.0 f = + + ;
1 2
1

= (
1
and
2
2
2.33
1.0
( )
r
r
K
l h
= +
Where,
r
l is length of the buckling of main girder(mm); h is height of main girder(mm);
r
t is thickness of
main girder(mm); and
r
K is buckling coefficient.

(e) Spheroidal graphite cast iron
Characteristic values of the strength of spheroidal graphite cast iron are shown in
Table 7.26-7.28. Values of no buckling and buckling are shown in Table 7.26 and Table
7.27, respectively. Characteristic values of the strength for local buckling of ductile cast
iron segment are shown in Table 7.28.
Table 7.26. Characteristic values of the strength of spheroidal graphite cast iron (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of cast iron
Type of stress
FCD 450-10 FCD 500-7
yk
f 280 320
yk
f
320 360
vyk
f ( /(1 )
yk
f = + )
220 250
Table 7.27. Characteristic values of the strength for buckling (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of cast iron
Type of stress
FCD 450-10 FCD 500-7
Axial compressive yield strength
Overall area
0 7 l r < :
yk
f
7 105 l r < :
2.34( 7)
yk
f l r
0 7 l r < :
yk
f
7 100 l r < :
2.79( 7)
yk
f l r


180
Table 7.28. Characteristic values for local buckling of ductile cast iron segment (N/mm2) [2]
Undisturbed from local buckling Under the influence local buckling
Type of steel
Ratio of width and
thickness
Strength
(N/mm
2
)
Ratio of width and
thickness
Strength
(N/mm
2
)
FCD 450-10
15.2
r
h
t f K

320
15.2 21.7
r
h
t f K

2
75400
r
t f K
h

FCD 500-7
14.3
r
h
t f K

360
14.3 20.5
r
h
t f K

2
75400
r
t f K
h

2
0.65 0.13 1.0 f = + + ;
1 2
1

= (
1
and
2
2
2 2 4 2
4 40 15 20
3
K

= + + ( 2.26 ),
min
2.37 K = ( 2.26 = );
Where,
r
l is length of the buckling of main girder (mm); h is height of main girder (mm);
r
t is thickness of
main girder (mm); and K is buckling coefficient;
r
l h = ; and is Poissons ratio of cast iron (=0.27).

(f) Steel casting for welded structure
Characteristic values of the strength of steel casting for welded structure are shown
in Table 7.29.
Table 7.29. Characteristic values of steel casting for welded structure (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of steel
Type of stress
SCW 480
yk
f
275
yk
f
275
vyk
f
155

(g) Bolt
Characteristic values of the strength of bolt are shown in Table 7.30.
Table 7.30. Characteristic values of the strength of bolt (N/mm
2
) [2]
Type of bolt
Type of stress
46 68 88 109
yk
f 240 480 660 940
vyk
f
135 275 380 540

181
(2) Stress-Strain Curve of Material
Stress-strain curves of material must be determined in limit state. Fig.7.9 shows the
stress-strain curves of concrete, steel, reinforcement, spheroidal graphite cast iron, and
bolt, which are used in limit state for considering failure of the cross-section in
Standard specifications for tunneling-2006, Shield tunnels in Japan [2].
1 cd
k f
0
: Compressive strength of concrete(N/mm
2
)
0.002
cu
ck
f
1
1 0.003 0.85
ck
k f =
0.0025 0.0035
cu

155
30000
ck
cu
f

= c
1
2
0.002 0.002
c c
c ck
k f

=

0
yd
f
yd
f
s yd
f =
s s
E =
s
: Tensional yield strength (N/mm

2
)

(a) Concrete (b) Steel, reinforcement, spheroidal graphite cast iron, bolt
Fig.7.9 Stress-strain curve
Linear stress-strain curves of material are used in the serviceability limit state. The
elastic moduli of materials are shown in Table 7.31 and Table 7.32.
Table 7.31. Elastic modulus of concrete (segment) [2]
ck
f (N/mm
2
) 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Elastic modulus
c
E (kN/mm
2
) 31.4 32.0 32.6 33.2 33.8 34.4 25.0
Table 7.32. Elastic modulus of steel, reinforcement, and spheroidal graphite cast iron [2]
Type of material Elastic modulus(kN/mm
2
)
Steel and steel casting
s
E 210
Spheroidal graphite cast iron
d
E 170
Poissons ratio of concert, steel, steel casting, and spheroidal graphite cast iron is
shown in Table 7.33
Table 7.33. Poissons ratio [2]
Material Poissons ratio
Elastic range 0.17
Concrete
Cracks occurred 0
Steel and steel casting 0.30
Spheroidal graphite cast iron 0.27


182
(3) Safety Factor
It should address safety factors in the limit state design method. These are as
follows:
1) Material factor
m

2) Member factor
b

3) Load factor
f

4) Structural analysis factor
a

5) Structure factor
i

(a) Material factor
Material factor is shown in Table 7.34.
Table 7.34. Nominal standard for material factor [2]
Material factor
m

Concrete Steel material Limit state
Segment Cast-in place
Reinforcement
bar Main girder
Longitudinal rib
Skin
plate
Spheroidal
graphite
cast iron
Bolt
Ultimate limit state 1.2 1.3 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.10 1.05
Serviceability limit
state
1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

(b) Member factor
Member factor is shown in Table 7.35 and Table 7.36.
Table 7.35. Nominal standard for member factor (Concrete segment) [2]
Member factor
b

Main part Limit state
Bending Compression Shear
Circumferential
joint
Longitudinal
joint
Metallic fitting
for hanging
Ultimate limit
state
1.10 1.30
1.30
1)
1.10
2)
1.10 1.15 1.30
Serviceability
limit state
1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Note: 1) The calculation of shear capacity obtained by the strength of concrete.
2) The calculation of shear capacity obtained by the strength of steel.

183
Table 7.36. Nominal standard for member factor (Steel and cast iron segment) [2]
Member factor
b

Main part Limit state
Bending Compression Shear
Circumferential
joint
Longitudinal
joint
Metallic fitting
for hanging
Ultimate limit
state
1.10 1.30 1.15

1.10 1.15 1.30
Serviceability
limit state
1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

(c) Load factor
Load factor is shown in Table 7.37.
Table 7.37. Nominal standard for load factor
f
[2]
Earth pressure
Limit state
Loosening
pressure
Full
overburden
pressure
Coefficient
of lateral
earth
pressure
Water
pressure
Coefficient
of subgrade
reaction
Dead
weight
Surcharge others
Ultimate
limit state
1.1-1.3
1)
1.05 0.8-1.0

0.9-1.0 0.9-1.0 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.3 1.0-1.3
Serviceability
limit state
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Note: 1)
f
can be assumed as 1.0 in the lower limit of the vertical earth pressure.

(d) Structural analysis factor
Structural analysis has an uncertainty in the analyzed results. Therefore, it is
necessary to determine structural analysis factor for designing the tunnel lining.
Structural analysis factor
a
is shown in Table 7.38.
Table 7.38. Nominal standard for structural analysis factor [2]
structural analysis factor
a

Ultimate limit state 1.0-1.1
Serviceability limit state 1.0


184
(e) Structure factor
It is normal design practice to ensure the safety of the structure, especially for
important structures. Therefore, structure factor
s
shown in Table 7.39 is used in
designing the tunnel lining.
Table 7.39. Nominal standard of structure factor [2]
structural analysis factor
s

Ultimate limit state 1.0-1.3
Serviceability limit state 1.0

7.5 DESIGN EXAMPLE

The design example is the fourth section of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Outer
Underground Discharge Channel. The Closed-composite segment and RC segment will
be designed for evaluating the practicability in the following design examples.

7.5.1 Dimensions of Segment

Type of segment: Composite segment/RC segment, flat type
Diameter of segmental lining: D
0
=11800mm
Radius of centroid of segmental lining: Rc=5550 mm
Width of segment: B=2000mm
Thickness of segment: t=350mm (This value is assumed for calculating loads acting
on the segmental lining)

7.5.2 Ground Conditions

Overburden: H=51.35m
Groundwater table: G.L.-6.33m Hw=51.35-6.33=45.02 m
Surcharge: P
0
=3.1101.0=31kN/m
2
(Height of flood=3.1m;
f
=1.0)
Soil condition: Alternation of soil strata (Clay, Sandy, and Gravel)
Unit weight of soil, submerged unit weight of soil, and angle of internal friction of

185
soil, and N value are shown in Fig.7.10.
N=6.0
C=25 kN/m
3
C=6.3 kN/m
3
N=2.9
N=6.0
N=22.9
C=120 kN/m
3
C=0 kN/m
3
N=39
C=0 kN/m
3
=0 degree
=40 degree
=0 degree
=0 degree
3
8.0kN/m =
3
18.0kN/m =
3
9.6kN/m =
3
19.6kN/m =
3
9.6kN/m =
3
19.6kN/m =
3
5.3kN/m =
3
15.3kN/m =
3
7.4kN/m =
3
17.4kN/m =
6
.
5
5
m
2
5
.
1
m
9
.
1
m
3
.
7
m
1
1
.
8
m
5
1
.
3
5
m
-44.75m
-6.33m Ground water Table
+6.60m
+9.70m Flood water Table
Clay in alluvial (Ac1)
Clay in alluvial (Ac2)
Sand in alluvial (Ns1)
Gravel in alluvial (Ng1)
Clay in diluvial (Dc2)
Clay in diluvial (Dc3)
Sand in diluvial (Ds3)

=0 degree

Fig.7.10 Ground condition

7.5.3 Load Conditions

The forces applying on tunnel lining are calculated based on combined load case
shown in Table 7.40.
Table 7.40. Combined load case
Earth pressure Groundwater table Inner water pressure
Load
case
Tunnel
condition
Large small High Low Normal Abnormal
Self
weight
Subgrade
reaction
1
No inner water
pressure

2
No inner water
pressure

3
Normal inner
water pressure

4
Normal inner
water pressure

5
Abnormal inner
water pressure

6
Abnormal inner
water pressure


186
The vertical earth pressure at the tunnel crown (
1 e
p ) is calculated by Terzahgis
formula based on flow chart of calculation of the loads shown in Fig.7.2. The tunnel is
located in alternation of soil strata, and main stratum is hard clayey of soil stratum.
Therefore, earth pressure calculate is calculated using Soil-Water integrated method.
Vertical pressure at tunnel crown:
Earth pressure:
2
1
468.2kN/ m
e f v
p = =

2
1 1
468.2kN/ m
v e
p p = =
Lateral pressure at tunnel crown:
Earth pressure: ( )
2
1
0.5 211.9kN/ m
e f c v i
q t = + =

2
1 1
211.9kN/ m
h e
q q = =
Lateral pressure at tunnel bottom:
Earth pressure: ( ) { }
2
2 0
0.5 265.4kN/ m
e f c v i
q D t = + =
2
2 2
265.4kN/ m
h e
q q = =

7.5.4 Calculation of Member Forces
The member forces are calculated by Shell-Spring model shown in Fig.7.11. The
segments are assembled in a staggered pattern.
Anchor joint (AS) joint and axial slide (Fig.7.12) were used as circumferential joint,
and longitudinal joint respectively, in Tokyo Metropolitan Area Outer Underground
Discharge Channel. These constants of springs were obtained by the experiments, and
described as follows:
Constants of spring of circumferential joint:
Axial spring:

6
5.0 10 kN/ m
c
a
k =
Shear spring:

5
2.2 10 kN/ m
c
s
k =

Rotational spring:
5
5
1.77 10 kNm/rad (Positive bending)
1.67 10 kNm/rad (Negative bending)
c
k

Constants of spring of longitudinal joint:
Axial spring:

6
4.8 10 kN/ m
L
a
k =

Shear spring:

5
2.1 10 kN/ m
L
s
k =

Rotational spring:
4
2.2 10 kN/ m
L
k
=

187

Constants of spring soil reaction are shown in Table 7.41.

Table 7.41. Spring constant of soil reaction
Modulus of deformation; Constants of Spring of soil reaction Remark
Modulus of deformation of soil
g
E (kN/m
2
)
4
8.0 10
4
g m
E E =
Passive soil reaction spring
rc
K
4
2.0 10
0
3
(1 )(5 6 )
g
rc
g g
E
K
R
=
+

Active soil reaction spring
rt
K
4
1.0 10
/ 2.0
rt rc
K K =
Constants
of Spring of
soil reaction
(kN/m
2
)
Tangential soil reaction spring
3
6.7 10
/ 3.0
t rc
K K =

4 2
2.0 10 kN/m
m
E = ;
0
5.9m R = ; 0.45
g
=

Table 7.42 shows the result of calculation of member forces of the segmental lining
(The segments are assembled in a staggered pattern). The maximum positive moment
occurs at the tunnel crown (Section B) and the maximum negative moment occurs at the
spring (Section B) which is located at 277.5 degrees from the tunnel crown (Clockwise).

Fig.7.11 Structural model

(a) Anchor joint

(b) Axial slide (AS) joint
Fig.7.12 Schematic of joint [11]


188
Table 7.42. Member forces of segmental lining (A-Ring)

(deg)
Bending moment
M
(kN m/Ring)
Axial force
N
(kN/Ring)
Shear force
Q
(kN/Ring)

(deg)
Bending moment
M
(kN m/Ring)
Axial force
N
(kN/Ring)
Shear force
Q
(kN/Ring)
0.0
606.1 3485.9 -90.0
101.3
-450.7 4714.8 -24.1
3.8
635.5 3487.9 -28.9
105.0
-439.8 4677.3 -70.6
7.5
628.5 3487.7 32.7
108.8
-396.2 4639.1 -116.5
11.3
610.4 3512.9 62.5
112.5
-349.9 4590.3 -122.8
15.0
580.2 3560.0 139.7
116.3
-301.5 4527.5 -135.2
18.8
502.6 3608.1 212.4
120.0
-245.6 4466.5 -152.3
22.5
416.3 3671.7 232.3
123.8
-184.0 4397.4 -159.6
26.3
323.4 3751.8 252.7
127.5
-130.1 4334.3 -141.4
30.0
221.3 3832.9 269.5
131.3
-75.0 4267.2 -147.5
33.8
115.5 3918.9 274.3
135.0
-16.3 4200.8 -157.5
37.5
16.7 4004.0 244.0
138.8
46.5 4134.1 -157.2
41.3
-72.7 4095.1 223.4
142.5
104.9 4069.6 -150.9
45.0
-155.6 4179.5 204.6
146.3
162.8 4008.7 -149.4
48.8
-230.5 4259.8 164.4
150.0
220.1 3954.6 -132.1
52.5
-282.4 4342.3 124.3
153.8
264.7 3903.7 -110.5
56.3
-326.4 4413.8 106.3
157.5
305.3 3857.7 -102.2
60.0
-364.3 4472.8 65.8
161.3
343.4 3820.0 -100.1
63.8
-377.0 4532.8 26.8
165.0
382.5 3784.3 -83.3
67.5
-384.9 4582.5 18.0
168.8
407.6 3753.3 -65.2
71.3
-390.8 4618.9 15.0
172.5
450.9 3729.1 -108.2
75.0
-396.4 4657.3 2.4
176.3
491.2 3703.2 -96.0
78.8
-392.6 4689.9 -9.8
180.0
525.0 3691.8 -77.3
82.5
-410.3 4708.2 47.1
183.8
550.9 3690.4 -27.7
86.3
-429.0 4732.0 47.8
187.5
546.4 3688.8 22.5
90.0
-447.2 4740.4 45.0
191.3
533.6 3707.4 45.5
93.8
-463.7 4738.1 14.3
195.0
511.4 3744.0 110.6
97.5
-458.3 4735.5 -17.0
198.8
448.2 3781.0 172.8

189
Table 7.42. (Continue)

(deg)
Bending
moment
M
(kN m/Ring)
Axial force
N
(kN/Ring)
Shear force
Q
(kN/Ring)

(deg)
Bending
moment
M
(kN m/Ring)
Axial force
N
(kN/Ring)
Shear force
Q
(kN/Ring)
202.5
378.0 3830.3 189.0
303.8
-311.0 4451.5 -156.9
206.3
302.4 3893.9 206.0
307.5
-246.1 4372.9 -168.3
210.0
219.1 3957.8 221.6
311.3
-190.5 4298.9 -147.7
213.8
131.4 4027.1 227.3
315.0
-132.2 4220.7 -157.7
217.5
50.9 4093.5 199.3
318.8
-68.9 4141.1 -172.9
221.3
-22.3 4166.3 184.2
322.5
1.1 4060.1 -179.8
225.0
-91.2 4234.6 171.7
326.3
69.8 3981.2 -179.3
228.8
-154.7 4300.6 142.0
330.0
139.3 3904.4 -181.1
232.5
-200.7 4368.8 112.0
333.8
209.4 3834.3 -167.2
236.3
-241.0 4429.4 100.1
337.5
268.3 3768.4 -147.3
240.0
-277.8 4481.2 72.3
341.3
322.9 3707.5 -138.0
243.8
-296.7 4534.4 45.7
345.0
374.7 3656.5 -134.8
247.5
-313.0 4580.1 42.4
348.8
426.9 3608.6 -113.6
251.3
-329.3 4615.7 45.3
352.5
231.1 3568.1 -45.9
255.0
-347.8 4653.6 38.5
356.3
516.9 7071.4 -134.4
258.8
-359.0 4685.9 28.8
360.0
606.1 3485.9 -90.0
262.5
-390.7 4707.3 83.7

266.3
-423.5 4733.4 84.6

270.0
-456.0 4744.2 81.8

273.8
-486.7 4743.6 48.0

277.5
-493.1 4742.9 12.5

281.3
-496.3 4722.7 2.4

285.0
-495.0 4683.2 -51.4

288.8
-456.7 4642.8 -105.3

292.5
-413.8 4589.9 -116.2

296.3
-367.1 4519.9 -133.2

300.0
378.0 3830.3 189.0


190
Figs 7.13 and 7.14 show the distributions of bending moment, axial force, and shear
force in A-Ring and B-Ring, respectively.
639.9
-472.3
3698.3
4968.9
Note: is angle from crown(Clockwise)
Axial force distribution of A Ring
A B A
Minimum (=0)
Bending moment(kNm/Ring) Axial force(kN)
Maximum (=90)
Shear force distribution of A Ring
A B A
-251.7
205.0
Minimum (=322.5)
Shear force(kN)
Maximum (=37.5)

(a) Axial force distribution of A-Ring (b) Shear force distribution of A-Ring

4958.5
3701.0
Axial force(kN)
Bending moment distribution of A Ring
A B A
-508.3
654.4
Minimum (=82.5)
Bending moment(kNm/Ring)
Maximum (=356.3)

-1000 -500 0 500 1000
320
325
330
335
340
Staggered pattern
Bending moment distrubution
Average value
B A A
Segment width(mm)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)

(c) Moment distribution of A-Ring (d) Moment distribution along width of A-Ring
Fig.7.13 Distributions of member forces of A-Ring in circumferential direction

191

3698.3
4968.8
Axial force distribution of B Ring
A B A
639.9
-472.3
Minimum (=0)
Bending moment(kNm/Ring) Axial force(kN)
Maximum (=270)
-181.1
274.3
A
Shear force distribution of B Ring
B A
Minimum (=330)
Shear force(kN)
Maximum (=33.8)

(a) Axial force distribution of B-Ring (b) Shear force distribution of B-Ring

4963.7
3684.4
Axial force(kN)
Bending moment distribution of B Ring
A B A
-524.0
666.8
Minimum (=277.5)
Bending moment(kNm/Ring)
Maximum (=3.7)

-1000 -500 0 500 1000
325
330
335
340
345
Staggered pattern
Bending moment distrubution
Average value
B A A
Segment width(mm)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)

(c) Moment distribution of B-Ring (d) Moment distribution along width of B-Ring
Fig.7.14 Distributions of member forces of B-Ring in circumferential direction


192
(c) Contour of bending moment in longitudinal direction
(a) Contour of shear force

Figs 7.15 shows Contour of member forces of segmental lining assembled in a
staggered pattern. It can be seen that splice effect of longitudinal joints occurs.

7.5.5 Designing Segmental Lining and Checking Safety

According to the above calculation result of member forces, the safety of the most
critical sections is checked using the limit state design method. The structure factor
s

(b) Contour of bending moment in circumferential
direction
(d) Contour of axial force in circumferential direction
Fig.7.15 Contour of member forces of segmental lining assembled in a staggered pattern

193
of 1.3 is used in designing segmental lining, because the tunnel is a permanent structure.
In the design of RC segment, the design axial capacity and the design bending
capacity of the member cross-sections subjected to axial load and bending moment can
be calculated using Eqs.(7.14) and (7.15). Bending moment-axial force curve of
cross-section can be determined based ultimate limit state shown in Fig. 7.16.
Stress-strain relationship of concrete and steel shown in Fig.7.9 is adopted.
( )
h/2
ud s
-h/2
N ( )bd / + /
c m s m
y y T T = +
(7.14)
( ) ( )
{ }
h/2
ud s
-h/2
M ( )b d / + h / 2 t h / 2 t /
c m s m
y y y T T =
(7.15)
where
s s s
T A = ;
s s s
T A = ; b is width of RC segment; h is height of RC segment;
m
is material factor; t and t are outer and inner concrete cover thickness, respectively.
0
l
<
0
l
=
u cu
=
(c)Ultimate limit state(3)
(b)Ultimate limit state(2)
u cu
=
u l cu
= =
cu
cu
M
N
N
1 cd
k f
1 cd
k f
A's
As
As
A's
h
/
2
x
h
/
2
x
h
/
2
x
(a) Strain (b) Stress (c) Force
Section
Section
Section
(a)Ultimate limit state(1)
M
N
1 cd
k f
A's
As

Fig.7.16 Transition of ultimate limit states for RC segment


194
2
s
A 6193.6 mm =
2
s
A 6193.6 mm =
Strength of concrete: 48N/mm
2
3
5
0
2000
7
5
6
5
D22 16@120
Unit: mm
D22 (SD345)
D22 (SD345)
D22 16@120

Fig.7.17 Section of RC segment and arrangement of main reinforcements

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Maximum positive moment
Maximum negative moment
A
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Bending moment (kNm)

Fig.7.18 Axial force-moment interaction diagram of RC segment

Fig.7.17 shows the design cross-section of RC segment. Axial force-moment
interaction diagram of cross-section is described by Fig.7.18. Therefore, as a rule, the
safety for combined axial load and bending moment is examined by confirming that the
point (M
d
, N
d
) is located inside of the (M
ud
, N'
ud
) curve. It can be seen that both Section
A and Section B are safe.

195
In the design of composite segment, the following design rules must be ensured.

(a) Width to Thickness Ratio
Elastic buckling stress for a rectangular plate subjected to an axial compression can
be calculated using Eq. (7.16), where is a Poissons ratio (0.3 for steel), and k is a
bucking coefficient that is determined from boundary conditions and aspect ratios of the
plate. When the plate is sufficiently long, the coefficient k depends only on the boundary
conditions. The values of k are given as 4.0, 5.42, and 6.97 for both edges simply
supported, one edge simply supported with the other fixed, and both edges fixed,
respectively [12]. In order to prevent elastic buckling, the buckling stress,
cr
F , should be
greater than or equal to the yield stress,
sy
f , which results in the limit of width to
thickness ratio for simple support conditions and for fixed support condition:
( )
( )
2
2
2
12 1
s
cr
E
F k
s t
(7.16)
s is spacing of shear studs; E
s
is the elastic modulus of steel plate; and t is taken as
the minimum thickness of skin plates.
It can be seen from Fig.4.17 of FEM analysis in Chapter 4 that stress of the buckled
top skin plate still increases as the applied load increases, and is greater than the
post-buckling stress calculated by Eq. (7.17). Considering the design tendency to safety
side, according to Guideline of buckling design of JSCE code, the post-buckling
stress
ud
f is calculated using Eq. (7.17):
( ) /
ud s sy
f t s E f = (7.17)
(b) Confined Concrete
Montoya et al.[13] proposed a concrete confinement model for steel tube confined
concrete is adopted in limit state design. The stress
c
c
using
the following formula:
2
1.0
cc
c
c c
cc cc
f
A B C
f f

=

+ +

(7.18)


196
(c) Shear Stud and Steel Plate
Shear stud can be bonded to the steel element using an automatic welding procedure.
The most important dimension is the diameter of the shank
sh
d which varies from
about 13 mm to about 22 mm. The diameter of the head is usually about 1.5d
sh
d , and
the height of the connector is usually greater than 4
sh
d , in order to ensure that the
connector does not pull out of the concrete element. The weld collar has a diameter of
about 1.3
sh
d , and a height of about 0.3
sh
d . The minimum spacing of connectors in a
composite segment is controlled by this concrete bearing zone because it is necessary to
ensure that these zones do not overlap, otherwise the dowel strengths of the connectors
will be reduced. This is achieved in design through detailing rules which require that the
longitudinal spacing of stud shear connectors is greater than about 5
sh
d , and that the
lateral spacing is greater than about 4
sh
d . The distance from the edge of the stud to the
edge of the steel plate is greater than about
sh
d [14].
The design axial capacity and the design bending capacity of the member
cross-sections subjected to axial load and bending moment can be calculated using the
state of stress and strain distribution shown in Figs.7.19. M
ud
, N'
ud
can be calculated by
the proposed method described in Chapter 5.
The number of shear studs can be calculated using Eqs.(7.19) and (7.20). Axial force
and shear force of members can be determined based ultimate limit state shown in Figs.
7.20, and 7.21.

t
t
t
b
t
c
tm
, t1 s
f
,b1 s
f
As
c
Main reinforcement
s,m
cc st
( ) +
Equivalent Stress
distribution
Concrete
M
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
M
a
i
n

g
i
r
d
e
r
3
d
t
f

t
f

1 c
f

1 1
d
c
f

cc
f
2
d
1
d
d
cc
f
c
f

N.A
ct
cc

Actual Stress
distribution
Steel tube Concrete
Strain
distribution
Skin plate
Concrete infill
Skin plate
Composite section

Fig.7.19 Transition of ultimate limit states for Closed-composite segment

197
Section Force
Tsu
Tc
T
sl

Fig.7.20 Resultant axial force in each element
B8 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B6 K7 K7

(a) Segmental ring arrangement
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
A4=280.1kN
A3=670.2kN
A2=259.7kN Shear force of one segment
A1=920.9kN
A4
A3
A2
A1
S
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
/
m
)
Arclength from tunnel crown (m)

(b) Shear force distribution of B-Ring
Fig.7.21 Distribution of connectors in segment with distributed loads

The number of longitudinal shear studs in a segment:
( ) { }
su c
min , /
SL u m
N T T Q = (7.19)
where
u
Q is shear capacity of a shear stud accounting for the effects of shear stud
spacing and plate thickness;
m
is safety factor of shear stud material.


198
The shear studs are once again distributed according to the areas of the shear force
shown in Fig.7.21. It is also standard convention to distribute the shear studs uniformly
within each of the zones A1-K7.
The number of circumferential shear studs in a segment:
( ) max
when
i i SL u
SC
L i m L
A L N Q
N
S L S

= =

(7.20)
where
i
A is area of shear force;
i
L is length of area
i
A ;
L
S is spacing of longitudinal shear
studs.
Fig.7.22 shows the design cross-section of Closed-composite segment based on the
previous rules.
2
3
0
2000
Unit: mm
Thickness(mm)
Skin plate Main girder Joint plate
6.0 12.0 12.0
Details of shear stud
Characteristic strength of concrete: 48N/mm2
Yield strength of steel: 235N/mm2 (SM400)
Tensional strength of shear stud: 530N/mm2
10.5
3
3
100
2
2
120
Number of shear studs: 17@120mm
Number of top shear studs is equal to number of top shear studs in the design of
composite segment for taking in accout the tunnel lining resisting positive and
negative moment
Note:

(a) Longitudinal direction

199
2
3
0
4550
Unit: mm
87.5
Number of lateral shear studs: 36@125mm
125

(b) Circumferential direction
Fig.7.22 Section of Closed-composite segment and arrangement of shear studs

Axial force-moment interaction diagram of cross-section is described by Fig.7.23.
Therefore, as a rule, the safety for combined axial load and bending moment is examined
by confirming that the point (M
d
, N
d
) is located inside of the (M
ud
, N'
ud
) curve. It can be
seen that both Section A and Section B are safe.
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Maximum positive moment
Maximum negative moment
A
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Bending moment (kNm)

Fig.7.23 Axial force-moment interaction diagram of Closed-composite segment

7.6. SUMMARY

Based on the proposed mechanical model in Chapter 5, the tunnel lining of the fourth
section of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel are
designed as RC segmental lining and Closed-composite segmental lining using limit
state design method, respectively.
D
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

2
0
0

C
l
o
s
e
d
-
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

R
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

C
u
t
o
f
f

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

o
f

c
i
r
c
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

j
o
i
n
t

E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t

c
u
t
o
f
f

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

o
f

c
i
r
c
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

j
o
i
n
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

h
i
g
h

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

(
e
.
g
.

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e

i
s

e
q
u
a
l

t
o

1
.
2
m
m

i
n

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

1
0
m
m

i
n

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n

)

C
u
t
o
f
f

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

o
f

c
i
r
c
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

j
o
i
n
t

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

C
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

(
T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
)

o
f

R
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

i
s

l
a
r
g
e
r
.

(
e
.
g
.

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e

i
s

e
q
u
a
l

t
o

1
.
0
m
m

i
n

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

2
0
m
m

i
n

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n

)

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
D
u
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

m
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

c
o
r
r
o
s
i
o
n
)

E
x
p
o
s
e
d

s
t
e
e
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

o
f

i
n
s
i
d
e

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

b
y

a
n
t
i
c
o
r
r
o
s
i
o
n

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,

d
u
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
a
n

b
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
.

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

m
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

c
o
r
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
a
n

b
e

n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d
,

i
f

t
h
e

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

o
f

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

c
o
v
e
r

i
s

e
n
s
u
r
e
d
.
(

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

r
e
p
a
i
r

a
r
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

c
r
a
c
k
s

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d

i
n

m
a
i
n

b
o
d
y

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

)

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

f
a
s
t
e
n
i
n
g

a
r
e

s
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
y

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,

m
a
n
u
a
l

h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g

i
s

n
o
t

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.

T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d

c
a
n

b
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
.

I
t

i
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

f
a
s
t
e
n

c
i
r
c
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

j
o
i
n
t
s

u
s
i
n
g

m
a
n
u
a
l

h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g

o
r

p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y

m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

m
a
c
h
i
n
e
.

O
n
e

p
a
s
s

t
y
p
e

i
s

w
i
d
e
l
y

u
s
e
d

i
n

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

j
o
i
n
t
s
.

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
a
f
e
t
y

o
f

d
a
m
a
g
e

i
n

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
i
n
g

N
o
t

b
e

d
a
m
a
g
e
d

e
a
s
i
l
y

f
o
r

h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g

a
n
d

j
a
c
k

t
h
r
u
s
t

i
n

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
i
n
g

s
t
a
g
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

i
n
f
i
l
l

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

s
t
e
e
l

t
u
b
e
.

T
h
e

c
o
r
n
e
r

e
d
g
e
s

o
f

R
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

a
r
e

e
a
s
i
l
y

d
a
m
a
g
e
d

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
e
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

w
e
a
k

o
f

t
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
.

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

m
u
s
t

b
e

p
a
i
d

w
h
e
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

f
o
r
m

i
s

r
e
m
o
v
e
d

a
n
d

R
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
n
d

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
d
.

E
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

t
h
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

M
u
c
k
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

R
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

c
a
n

b
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
.

T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

m
u
c
k

i
s

a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

c
a
n

b
e

n
o
t

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
.

T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,

a

l
o
t

o
f

m
u
c
k

i
s

d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.

T
h
e

t
u
n
n
e
l

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

i
s

l
a
r
g
e
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

o
v
e
r

e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
m
m

t
o

3
0
0
m
m

i
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

i
s

s
l
i
g
h
t
n
e
s
s

i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
p
a
i
r

(
e
.
g
.

S
t
e
e
l

t
u
b
e

p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
)

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

f
e
w

d
a
m
a
g
e

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

i
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.

T
h
e

d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

t
u
n
n
e
l

i
s

s
m
a
l
l
e
r

f
o
r

l
e
a
k
a
g
e
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t

c
u
t
o
f
f

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
.

I
t

i
s

a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

m
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

d
a
m
a
g
e

i
s

d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t

i
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.

T
h
e

d
a
m
a
g
e

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d

i
n

u
s
e

p
e
r
i
o
d
,

a
n
d

l
a
r
g
e

s
c
a
l
e

r
e
p
a
i
r

a
n
d

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
r
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.

T
h
e

c
o
s
t

o
f

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

l
e
a
k
a
g
e

i
s

l
a
r
g
e
.

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
3
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

t
y
p
e

200
T
h
e

M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

a
n
d

D
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

S
h
i
e
l
d

T
u
n
n
e
l

2
0
1

E
c
o
n
o
m
y

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

r
i
n
g
(

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

t
u
n
n
e
l
:

6
.
3

k
m
)
:

6
3
0
0
m
2
.
0
m
=
3
1
5
0
R
i
n
g

C
o
s
t

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
:

1
2
1
0
0
0
3
1
5
0
=
3
8
1
1
5
0
0
0
0

$

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
1
1
7
2
5
0

$

S
e
a
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
2
5
0
0

$
C
a
u
l
k
i
n
g
1
2
5
0

$
T
o
t
a
l

1
2
1
0
0
0

$
/
R
i
n
g

T
h
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

c
o
s
t

o
f

m
u
c
k
i
n
g
:

0

$

T
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
:

3

m
o
n
t
h
s

3
0
0
0
0
0

$

=
9
0
0
0
0
0

$

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
:

3

m
o
n
t
h
s

2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0

$

=
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
0

$

T
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t
:

3
8
6
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
-
9
0
0
0
0
0
-
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
0

=

3
1
1
2
5
0
0
0
0

$

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

r
i
n
g
(

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

t
u
n
n
e
l
:

6
.
3

k
m
)
:

6
3
0
0
m
2
.
0
m
=
3
1
5
0
R
i
n
g

C
o
s
t

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
:

1
0
2
7
5
0
3
1
5
0
=
3
2
3
6
6
2
5
0
0

$

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
9
9
0
0
0

$
S
e
a
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
2
5
0
0

$
C
a
u
l
k
i
n
g
1
2
5
0

$
W
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
o
f
i
n
g
6
7
0
0

$
T
o
t
a
l
1
0
2
7
5
0

$
/
R
i
n
g

T
h
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

c
o
s
t

o
f

m
u
c
k
i
n
g
:

6
6
1
5
0
0
0

$

T
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
:

0

$

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
:

0

$

T
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t
:

3
2
3
6
6
2
5
0
0
+
6
6
1
5
0
0
0

=

3
3
0
2
7
7
5
0
0

$

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

T
h
e

C
l
o
s
e
d
-
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s

i
n

c
u
t
o
f
f

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

s
a
f
e
t
y
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

i
s

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t

(
s
l
i
g
h
t
n
e
s
s

i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
p
a
i
r
)
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

f
e
w

d
a
m
a
g
e

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

i
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.

R
C

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s

i
n

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

s
a
f
e
t
y

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

d
a
m
a
g
e

o
f

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

w
i
l
l

o
c
c
u
r

i
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.

201


202
Comparisons have been made between the cross-section of RC segment and the
cross-section of Closed-composite segment shown in Table 7.43. The reduction of
segment thickness is obtained using Closed-composite segment and this indicates that
Closed-composite segment is suitable for decreasing muck, construction period and the
outside diameter of the shield machine. In general, the costs of construction, risk, and
maintenance will be decreased

7.7. REFERENCES

1) International tunnelling association, 2000. Guidelines for the design of shield tunnel
lining. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 303-331.
2) Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2007. Standard specifications for
tunneling-2006, Shield tunnels.
3) Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 1994. Standard specifications for design
segment (in Japanese).
4) Terzaghi, K., 1946. Rock Defects and Load on Tunnel Supports. In: Proctor, R.V.,
White, T.C. (Eds.), Introduction to Rock Tunnelling with Steel Support. Commercial
Shearing and Stamping Co., Youngstava, OH, USA.
5) Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI), 1997. Design Standard for Railway
Structures (Shield-Driven Tunnel), Maruzen, pp. 47-61. (In Japanese)
6) Murakami, Koizumi, et al, 1978. Study on rational design method of the
circumferential joint of a segment. Waseda Univ. report, No.82. (In Japanese)
7) Koizumi, 1979. Study on segment design. Ph.D. thesis, Waseda Univ., Tokyo. (In
Japanese)
8) Koizumi, Murakami, Nishino,1988. Study on the analytical model for shield tunnel in
longitudinal direction. Journal of JSCE, No.394, 1-10. (In Japanese)
9) Kimura, Koizumi, 1999. A design method of shield tunnel lining taking in account of
the interaction between the lining and the ground. Journal of JSCE, No.624, 123-134.
(In Japanese)
10) Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2003. Standard specifications for
concrete structures-2002, Structural performance verification.

203
11) Masami, Shirato, et al.2003. Development of new composite segment and
application to the tunneling project. Journal of JSCE, No.728, 157-174.(In Japanese)
12) Galambos TV, 1998. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures.5th ed.
New York: Wiley.
13) Montoya, E.,2003. Behavior and analysis of confined concrete. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Toronto, Toronto.
14) Deric J Oehlers, Mark A Bradford, 1995. Composite steel and concrete structural
members. UK: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.

205
Chapter 8. Conclusions

The mechanical behavior of composite segment with different composited designs is
investigated in this paper. The local buckling, slip and effective strength formulas are
incorporated into the nonlinear analysis procedures to account for local buckling and slip
effects on the strength and ductility performance of composite segments under combined
loads. From the results described in previous chapters, several conclusions may be
summarized as follows.

(a) The accuracy of proposed FEM models
A comparison between the analyzed and experimental results indicates that the
proposed finite element model using MSC.Marc can simulate the mechanical behavior
of composite segments (including Closed-composite segment, SSPC segment, and DRC
segment).
Contact analysis was found to be able to simulate the slip at the interface between
steel tube and concrete infill. For the composite segments with no axial load, frictionless
condition could simulate the load-deflection curves from the experimental results. For
axially loaded the composite segments, a friction coefficient of 0.1 produced convincing
results.
Discrete shear studs modeled using 3D beam elements is able to simulate the
mechanical behavior of shear connectors.
The effective width of the skin plate in compression should be adopted in analysis
and design of composite segment, according to different degree of shear connection. The
skin plate in tension can be assumed as the member of full effective cross-section.

(b) The accuracy of proposed mechanical model
A nonlinear fiber element analysis method is proposed for the inelastic analysis and
design of concrete infill steel tubular composite segments with local buckling and slips.
Sectional geometry, residual stresses and strain hardening of steel tubes and confined
concrete models were considered in the proposed mechanical model. The local buckling,
slip and effective strength formulas were incorporated into the nonlinear analysis

Conclusion
206
procedures to account for local buckling and slip effects on the strength and ductility
performance of composite segments under combined loads.
The formulation of differential equations is suitable for the solution of partially
interactive steel tube composite segment elements. Closed form solutions for single,
double and uniform load arrangements on simple span segments have been presented. A
step-wise linearization method has been described which allows the non-linear affects of
concrete cracking and shear stud stiffness to be incorporated.
The analysis involves non-dimensional constants which affect the steel plate
interaction. The effects are either direct when the constant relates to the plate for which
it is formulated or crossed when it affects the opposite plate for which it is formulated.
More attention should be paid on the shear capacity of shear studs in composite
segments. In current codes, only some coefficients are suggested for considering the
influences of the concrete strength, steel strength, and shear stud dimension. It was
found that the shear stud spacing and the thickness of the welded steel plate also have
the effects on the shear capacity, so the coefficients and
V
are recommended.
Comparisons are made between experimental results and the mechanical predictions
of behavior using the proposed method. Good agreement is found and this indicates that
the proposed method is suitable for general analysis of tunnel lining of composite
segment.

(c) Design tunnel lining of composite segment
A comparison is made between the cross-section of RC segment and the cross-section
of Closed-composite segment. The reduction of segment thickness is obtained using
Closed-composite segment and this indicates that Closed-composite segment is suitable
for decreasing muck, construction period and the outside diameter of the shield machine.
In general, the costs of construction, risk, and maintenance will be decreased

The Mechanical Behavior and Design of Composite
Segment for Shield Tunnel

Abstract
in Japanese

1km
33km

RC
RC
4 6
RC
RC

8
1
2

3

4 3 FEM
3 FEM

5 FEM
FEM
FEM
7
RC

8 2 7

List of Papers

2009 10

1

A study of the localized bearing capacity of reinforced concrete K-segment
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, ITA, Vol.22,No.4, pp.467-473,
2007,7. Wenjun Zhang, Atsushi Koizumi.

, 4,,pp.40-45,
2007,9

Flexural rigidity of closed composite segment, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Tunnelling for Urban Development, ITA, Pattaya, Thailand,
pp.205-212, 2007,12. Wenjun Zhang, Atsushi Koizumi.

Stiffness and Deflection of Composite Segment for Shield Tunnel, Tunnelling
Technology & The Environment, TAC, Canada, pp.95-105, 2008,10. Wenjun
Zhang, Atsushi Koizumi.

,F, Vol.65,No2,
pp.246-263, 2009.

Design of composite segment for underground discharge channel, Proceedings
of the fifth China-Japan conference on shield tunnelling, Chengdu, China,
pp.10-19, 2009,9. Wenjun Zhang, Atsushi Koizumi.

2

16 pp.319~324,2006

3

()
2008ISBN 978-7-112-09246-8,

()2009,
ISBN 978-7-112-10949-4,

4

JR 2007 3 .

2006 7 , .

2006 7 , .

2006 7 ,
.

2009 9 .

5

(JISF)2008, 300 .

Shield Tunnel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shield Tunnel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY ON MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR AND

DESIGN OF COMPOSITE SEGMENT

110 5 2.90 4.27 150.2 3.80 150.0 1.001 1.124

73.4 3.20 3.25 5.03 93.9 4.95 96.1 0.977 1.016

= . The shape factor

450 600 600 450

= . The shape factor

= . The shape factor

express the directions and joint location, respectively.

is given by Koizumi based experimental study

> (uniform rigidity ring),

: Tensional yield strength (N/mm

You might also like