Design Philosophy of Concrete Linings For Tunnels in Soft Soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings
for tunnels in soft soils
Notes by Jon Hurt.

1. German/Dutch design approach:
(p6) Rule of thumb: Lining thickness = /20
(p6) Beam spring model
(p9) With springs (sometimes) at longitudinal and radial joints
(p10) Active soil loading (sometimes tangential ignored)
(p10) Flotation check
(p11) Passive soil support discreet springs or continuum
2. (p16) In modern Dutch tunnels, bitumen packing not enough, plywood required (except at
GreonHart, no packing at all)
3. (p17) Best lining performance with only two rams per segment
4. (p20) Analysis gives far more slender linings than are applied in practice
5. (p57) New relationship developed for reduction in stiffness with number of segments
6. (p94) Loading conditions for Dutch tests
7. (p136) Typical damage and crack patterns
8. (p159) Torsion check
9. (p173) Cracks from ram loads
10. (App A) Ring from Botlek tunnel
Design philosophy of concrete linings

for tunnels in soft soils
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.dr.ir. J.T. Fokkema,
in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een commissie,
door het College voor Promoties aangewezen,
op vrijdag 20 december 2002 te 16.00 uur
door
Cornelis Bernhard Marco Blom

civiel ingenieur
geboren te Rotterdam
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Prof.dr.ir. J.C. Walraven
Toegevoegd promotor:
Dr.ir. C. van der Veen
Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
Rector Magnificus,
Prof.dr.ir. J.C. Walraven
Dr.ir. C. van der Veen
Prof.dr.ir. J. Blaauwendraad
Prof.dr.ir. J.G. Rots
Prof.dr.ir. F. Molenkamp
Prof.dr. H. Duddeck
Dr.ir. A.F. Pruijssers
voorzitter
Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Technische Universiteit Delft, toegevoegd promotor
Technische Universiteit Delft
Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Deutchland
Ex Aequo Pruijssers Management v.o.f.
Published and distributed by: DUP Science

DUP Science is an imprint of
Delft University Press
P.O. Box 98
2600 MG Delft
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 15 27 85 678
Telefax: +31 15 27 85 706
E-mail: Info@Library.TUDelft.nl
ISBN 90-407-2366-4
Keywords: tunnel, design, damage
Copyright 2002 by C.B.M. Blom
All rights reserved.
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be produced or utilised in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the author.
Printed in the Netherlands
Acknowledgements
The research that is reported in this thesis was performed at the Civil Engineering Department of
Delft University of Technology. I would like to thank Prof. Walraven, Dr. van der Veen and all
the financiers for their unlimited graceful willingness to support this research. This thesis is
financially funded by
Holland Railconsult, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ministry of Transports and Water Management, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands.
I would like to thank the financiers representatives of the research, Freerk de Boer, Predrag
Jovanovic, Gerrit Wolsink, Klaas-Jan Bakker, Dick Hordijk and Jan Gijsbers for their supports.
I would like to thank the financiers of the full-scale test facility at the Delft University of
Technology for their support in the realisation of this great test facility. The financing parties
are:
Management Group Betuweroute.
High Speed Line South.
TNO Building and Construction Research.
Delft University of Technology.
I would like to thank the management of Holland Railconsult for the unique opportunity to
extend the time for this research while being member of this fantastic company.
And of course I thank my colleges at the University, Holland Railconsult and the offices I have
been working. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I have.
I address special thanks to Predrag Jovanovic for his excellent contribution and guidance in my
personal development. I hope that the tandem bicycle continues. There are many tablecloths left
we can use in discussions. Also thanks to Johan Schillings from CST to take care of the
implementation of the FEM analyses. I hope your telephone bill drops now.
Mum, Dad and family, you are great. Words are inadequate to thank you for everything. Dear
Marjolein, your unprecedented support shows the miracles of life.
Kees Blom
Summary
This thesis deals with the design of the segmented lining of shield driven tunnels in soft soils.
It becomes clear that a collective problem in actual projects is the quality loss during the
construction of the lining, by cracking and damage of the concrete segments. The available
structural engineering models do not provide tools to analyse the damage mechanisms that occur
during the assembly. Actually this is a result of the wish to design the lining with the
requirements for the serviceability stage as governing. Therefore the basic assumption is that the
assembly should be non-normative. However, practice shows that the assembling stage is very
important with regard to eventual loss of quality.
It is obvious that quality loss through cracks and damage mainly occurs during the construction
of the lining. In the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) the segments are erected to form a ring. The
TBM is a very advanced machine designed by specialists in the field of mechanics and
machinery. Specialists in the field of civil engineering design the lining. It might be a
coincidence that just at the contact interface of these two fields of specialism the quality loss
occurs. On the other hand it is questionable whether or not both disciplines sufficiently
communicate with each other in order to optimise design and construction.
In literature many analytical models are published to analyse the behaviour of the lining of
shield driven tunnels. The analytical solutions in general have in common that they only involve
a single ring, mostly without explicit consideration of the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints.
In this thesis a new approach is described on how to implement explicitly the rotational stiffness
of the longitudinal joints and the lateral interaction between the rings for a lining system in an
elastic soil continuum. The new analytical solution for the segmented linings of shield driven
tunnels, with explicitly integrated longitudinal joints, lateral ring joint interaction and elastic soil
continuum offers a very powerful tool to calculate the lining behaviour in the serviceability
state. The solutions provide a transparent understanding of influences of parameters and
structural design values such as internal forces and deformations. It also shows that non-linear
behaviour of the longitudinal joints can be implemented in the analytical solutions.
The comparison of the new analytical solutions with well-known solutions from literature shows
a good agreement. Since solutions in literature were never presented for single rings with
explicit longitudinal joints and coupled systems ever, such a comparison can not be made.
However the direct comparison for the single homogeneous ring is made and agrees very well.
The explicit implementation of the longitudinal joints and the lateral coupling shows the
influence of these geometrical parts of the lining.
One has to remind that the predicted forces and the deformations are based on the so-called
beam analysis. This means that the force distribution over the segmental width is assumed to
be the average value over that width. It turns out that the distribution (especially important in
crack analysis) of the stresses is not equally distributed over the segmental width.
Attention is given to load cases in the serviceability stage and at the assembly. In this thesis an
additional load case, the so-called uplift loading case is presented to invoke the consequences
of poor support that might occur during the construction stage. Analyses of FEM models of
grouting result in the uplift loading case, which is a load model that can easily be used in the
lining analyses.
It shows that structural analyses of linings with full soil support (ring analyses with soil support
in the serviceability stage) do not confirm the applied lining thickness that is observed in todays
practice. From the structural ring analyses with full soil support it follows that the application of
thicker linings is of poor influence on the safety and costs. The uplift loading case (that involves
grout loading on the lining in the assembling stage) shows that the soil support is of major
influence on the safety of the lining and that therefore the grout material specification and
pressure should be considered very carefully.
The structural analysis of the lining includes the question what the actual ULS of the lining
means in relation to the acting forces. Geometrically and physically linear and non-linear
analyses show that the geotechnical structure of the lining in soil requires an alternative
approach of the ULS. The ULS is not reached by the excess of the tangential bending capacity of
the lining and radial deformations, but more by excess of the normal force capacity of the lining.
Two additional failure mechanisms are distinguished: local buckling and snap through. These
mechanisms should also be checked when analysing the structure for the ULS.
A comparison is made between the new analytical solution and the results of the full-scale test
carried out at the Delft University of Technology. Two main cases are considered: the all in one
test and the sequential loading test. In the all in one test the total system of three rings is loaded
in radial and axial direction at once. In the sequential load case in the first instance only two of
the three rings are loaded in radial direction. In the second instance the third ring is loaded in
radial direction in presence of the axial forces.
The results of the analytical solution for the loading at once case show very good agreement for
the radial deformations and the tangential stresses. The analytical solution is fully confirmed by
the results from the laboratory test in this case.
The comparison with the sequential loading case involves some complications. It is concluded
that the loading of a ring results in redistribution of the acting forces when ring interaction can
occur. In the case of the full-scale test about 60% of the acting loading is migrating to adjoining
rings. The direct adjoined ring dissipates 40% of the acting loading, while the next adjoining
ring dissipates 20%. These values are confirmed by 3D FEM analyses. Further it turns out that
only ovalisation loading is migrating through the lateral joints. The uniform pressure does not
migrate. As a consequence the loading in the analytical model is adapted to this migration
hypothesis.
With the special consideration of the migration of acting forces, the results of the sequential
loading in the full-scale testing can be compared. The results of the several types of calculation
models, like analytical solution, frame analysis and 3D FEM analysis, show a very good
agreement with the measured values in the full-scale test.
The analysis shows that the subsequent loading influences the deformations and the internal
forces in the adjoining rings. The lateral joint interaction capacity is very important from this
point of view. It has turned out that due to the sequential loading the integrated forces in a ring
are not influenced by the coupling forces. Locally the coupling forces will result in highly
disturbed stress spots.
A comparison is made between the results of the calculations and the measurements of real
tunnel linings in practice. The comparison is focused on the tangential components of the
internal forces. It becomes clear that the influence of the axial forces on the tangential
components is especially visible in the tangential stresses and the tangential normal forces. The
contribution of the axial forces to these tangential components is established by the involvement
of the lateral contraction. The tangential bending moments do not show this influence.
Nevertheless the influence of the couplings in the lateral joints is visible.
The comparison of the calculated results with the measurement data of the Botlek Railway
Tunnel (BRT) holds the conclusion that the uplift loading case with incomplete grouting has
occurred. The comparison of the tangential stresses, the tangential normal forces and the
tangential bending moments confirms a very good agreement with the calculation results based
on the incomplete grouting in the uplift loading case.
From the measurements it becomes clear that tangential stresses are not uniformly distributed
over the segmental width. An analysis of the several stages in the assembly shows that,
especially when the ring is within the TBM or just leaves the rear of the TBM, the distribution
of the tangential stresses is highly non-uniform. This is of special interest when crack analyses
are carried out. It is also observed that in these stages the amplitudes of values occur which
exceed the values in later stages.
The comparison of the model results with the measured data at the Second Heinenoord Tunnel
(SHT) holds the conclusion that the load conditions at the assembly should be due to the uplift
loading case with complete grouting or just the normal loading case without the tangential
components. It is obvious that the internal forces in the lining develop in time.
The goal of the ideal assembling process is to build a perfectly round ring without any initial
stresses, well closed joints and equal supports of all segments. Design of the segments and ring
layout intends a perfect system of segments with a perfectly round shape of the ring. It becomes
clear that there are many causes that might result in the quality loss. The causes might result in
quality loss by themselves, but the causes might also act simultaneously.
Examples are given of mechanisms that contribute to the stresses in the segments. These
mechanisms are mostly not implemented in the so-called ring models. Therefore additional
analyses have to be carried out to analyse these mechanisms. It turns out that the additional
mechanisms might result in high tensile stresses that cause cracks in the concrete. The
mechanisms result in the crack direction that is often observed in practice. The mechanisms,
mostly three-dimensional problems, give the understanding why cracks so easily occur during
the assembly of the lining. Since the mechanisms so easily result in cracking, the best solution is
to avoid the occurrence of the mechanisms. Main driving forces for the cracks are torsional
moments, additional tangential moments, shear forces and the high axial forces.
The design approach should always have the boundary condition that the serviceability stage is
normative. To fulfil this condition basic assumptions are made to the assembling stage. It has to
be proved that these basic assumptions are valid in design, construction and exploitation. In case
that the assembling stage is at least as normative as the serviceability stage, in respect to the
lining, economical loss in optimum occurs because the assembling stage is only a minor period
in the lifetime of the lining.
A design philosophy is described that includes the analysis of the lining behaviour at the
assembly. The optimal design is actually the following:
The lining is designed in the serviceability stage without any consideration of the
assembly.
Consequently the construction method is determined such that it does not result in any
aggravating addition to the serviceability stage.
Samenvatting
Dit manuscript handelt over het ontwerp van de lining van geboorde tunnels in slappe grond.
Een collectief probleem in de hedendaagse tunnelbouw is het kwaliteitsverlies aan de
gesegmenteerde betonnen lining, dat optreedt tijdens de bouw van de tunnel. De beschikbare
engineeringmodellen zijn niet geschikt om de optredende schademechanismen te analyseren.
Eigenlijk is dit het resultaat van de wens om de tunnel te ontwerpen voor een maatgevende
gebruiksfase. Het uitgangspunt in het ontwerp is dat de bouwfase niet maatgevend mag zijn.
Toch laat de hedendaagse bouwpraktijk zien dat de bouwfase heel belangrijk is in het kader van
kwaliteitsverliezen.
Het is duidelijk dat kwaliteitsverlies door schade en scheuren voornamelijk tijdens de bouwfase
optreedt. In de TunnelBoorMachine (TBM) worden segmenten samengesteld tot een ring. De
TBM is een geavanceerde machine die wordt ontworpen door gespecialiseerde
werktuigbouwkundigen. Specialisten uit de Civiele Techniek ontwerpen de betonnen lining. Het
kan toeval zijn dat juist op het raakvlak tussen deze disciplines kwaliteitsverlies optreedt. Aan
de andere kant is het de vraag of deze disciplines voldoende communiceren om de ontwerpen en
de uitvoering te optimaliseren.
In de literatuur zijn veel analytische modellen gepubliceerd om het gedrag van de lining van
boortunnels te analyseren. Over het algemeen beschrijven de modellen een enkele ring, zonder
expliciete bijdrage van rotatiestijfheid van langsvoegen.
In dit manuscript wordt een analytisch model beschreven met expliciete bijdrage van
rotatiestijfheid in de langsvoegen en koppelingen in de ringvoegen, waarbij het gehele systeem
in een bedding ligt. Dit nieuwe model blijkt een krachtig middel om het lininggedrag in de
gebruiksfase te analyseren. Het model geeft een verhelderend inzicht in de invloed van
parameters op de resultaten, zoals snedenkrachten en vervormingen. Tevens kan niet-lineair
rotatiegedrag van langsvoegen worden geanalyseerd.
Omdat de modellen uit de literatuur slechts analyses van enkele ringen bevatten, zonder
expliciete implementatie van rotatiestijfheden, kan een vergelijking voor dubbele ringen met
expliciete rotatiestijfheid in de langsvoegen en koppelingen in de ringvoegen niet worden
gemaakt. Toch levert de vergelijking voor de enkele ring analyse zeer goede overeenkomsten op.
De expliciete rotatiestijfheden in de langsvoegen en de ringvoeginteractie in het nieuwe model
laten de invloed van deze parameters, ten opzichte van de enkele ring modellen, duidelijk zien.
Bedacht moet worden dat de ringmodellen gebaseerd zijn op een zogenaamde staaf analyse.
Dat betekent dat de spanningsverdeling over de breedte van segmenten gelijkmatig verdeeld
wordt verondersteld. Het blijkt dat de spanningen niet gelijkmatig verdeeld zijn. Dat is
belangrijk voor de analyses van scheuren en schade.
Aandacht wordt gegeven aan belastinggevallen in de gebruiksfase en tijdens de bouwfase. In dit
manuscript wordt een nieuw belastinggeval onderzocht, de zogenaamde uplift loading case,
om de invloed van de mogelijk slechte grondondersteuning, door het grouten, tijdens de
bouwfase te analyseren. Analyses van EEM modelberekeningen van het groutproces hebben
geresulteerd in de uplift loading case. Deze belasting is vervolgens relatief eenvoudig te

modelleren in ringmodellen.
Het blijkt dat berekeningen van de lining in een volledige grondondersteuning (gebruiksfase) de
in de praktijk toegepaste liningdikte niet bevestigt. Bij een toename van de segmentdikte blijkt
dat niet alleen de kosten te stijgen, maar tevens dat de constructieveiligheid afneemt. De uplift
loading case (inachtneming van het grouten) laat zien dat de grondondersteuning van enorm
belang is en dat daarom de specificatie van het groutmateriaal en de injectiedrukken speciale
aandacht vragen.
De analyse van het lininggedrag omvat de vraag wat de ULS betekent in relatie tot de
optredende snedekrachten. Geometrisch en fysisch niet-lineaire berekeningen leiden tot een
afwijkende overweging van de ULS. De ULS wordt uiteindelijk niet bereikt door het eenvoudig
overschrijden van een maatgevende normaalkracht-moment combinatie, maar door het niet meer
kunnen opnemen van de tangentile normaalkracht. Daarnaast worden nog twee
faalmechanismen geanalyseerd: lokaal uitknikken en het doorslagverschijnsel.
Een vergelijking wordt gemaakt tussen het nieuwe analytische model en de resultaten van de
full-scale testen die zijn uitgevoerd in het Stevin II laboratorium van de Technische Universiteit
Delft. Twee belangrijke testgevallen worden onderzocht: de all in one test en de sequentile
test. In de all in one test worden drie ringen zowel radiaal als axiaal tegelijkertijd belast. In de
sequentile test worden eerst twee ringen in radiale richting belast waarna de derde ring in
radiale richting wordt belast, terwijl een axiale belasting aanwezig is.
De resultaten van het analytische model en de all in one test komen zeer goed overeen voor
zowel vervormingen als tangentile spanningen. De analytische oplossing wordt volledig
bevestigd door de test.
De vergelijking van het analytische model met de sequentile test brengt enige complicaties met
zich mee. Het blijkt dat door ringinteractie het belasten van een ring leidt tot herverdeling over
de aangrenzende ringen. In het geval van de full-scale test blijkt dat 60% van de ovaliserende
belasting wordt doorgegeven aan de aangrenzende ringen, waarvan 40% in de direct
aangrenzende ring en 20% in de daarop volgende ring. Deze waarden worden bevestigd door 3D
EEM analyses. Verder blijkt dat alleen de ovaliserende belasting migreert, maar de uniforme
belasting niet. Op basis van deze bevindingen kan de belasting in de analytische modellen
worden aangepast voor de sequentile belasting met de bijbehorende migratie.
Met speciale aandacht voor migratie van de belastingen kunnen de meetresultaten uit de
sequentile test worden vergeleken met modelresultaten. Deze vergelijking resulteert in goed
overeenkomende waarden.
Analyses laten zien dat de sequentile belasting de vervormingen en interne krachten in de
naastliggende ringen benvloedt. Daarom is de ringvoegconfiguratie erg belangrijk. Het blijkt
dat de gemiddelde krachten over verschillende ringen niet worden benvloed, maar lokaal
worden krachten erg benvloed door krachtinleiding over de ringvoegen.
Ook is een vergelijking gemaakt tussen modelresultaten en praktijkmetingen. De vergelijking

richt zich voornamelijk op de tangentile krachtcomponenten. De bijdrage van de axiale
krachten aan de tangentile componenten wordt in rekening gebracht door dwarscontractie. Het
is duidelijk dat de axiale krachten hoofdzakelijk zichtbaar zijn in de tangentile spanningen en
de tangentile normaalkrachten. De invloed van dwarscontractie op de tangentile momenten is
beperkt, maar door krachtinleiding over de ringvoegen worden de tangentile momenten toch
benvloed.
De vergelijking van de modellen met de full-scale testen praktijkresultaten leidt tot de
conclusie dat bij de praktijkmetingen van de Botlek Spoortunnel (BRT) de zogenaamde uplift
loading case opgetreden kan zijn. Een vergelijking van de modelresultaten op basis van de uplift
loading case belastingen met de praktijkmetingen, resulteert in zeer goed overeenstemmende
waarden voor de tangentile spanningen, tangentile normaalkrachten en momenten.
Vanuit de metingen wordt het duidelijk dat spanningen niet gelijkmatig verdeeld zijn over de
segmentbreedte. Analyse van de verschillende stadia in de bouwfase laat zien dat, zeker als de
ring binnen de TBM is of net de TBM verlaat, spanningen in hoge mate niet uniform verdeeld
zijn. Dit is erg belangrijk in het geval van spanningsanalyse voor scheurvorming. Het blijkt ook
dat dan spanningsniveaus kunnen optreden die maatgevend zijn boven spanningen in de
gebruiksfase.
Vergelijking van modelresultaten met metingen van de Tweede Heinenoord Tunnnel leidt tot de
conclusie dat daar een volledig groutproces heeft plaatsgevonden of dat al heel snel de normale
grondbelastingen aangrijpen. Het is duidelijk dat de interne krachten veranderen in de tijd.
Het doel van de ideale assemblage van de tunnel is het bouwen van een perfect ronde ring, met
goed gesloten voegen op gelijkmatig verdeelde opleggingen voor alle segmenten. Hierop is ook
het ontwerp van segmenten gebaseerd. Het blijkt dat er vele oorzaken zijn voor kwaliteitsverlies
die elk op zich kunnen leiden tot schade, maar zeker ook tegelijkertijd kunnen optreden.
Voorbeelden worden uitgewerkt van schademechanismen die bijdragen aan extra spanningen in
de segmenten. Deze extra mechanismen zijn niet gemplementeerd in de zogenaamde
ringmodellen. Daarom moeten aanvullende analyses worden uitgevoerd om deze mechanismen
te beschouwen. Het blijkt dat juist deze mechanismen kunnen leiden tot hoge spanningen in de
segmenten die schade kunnen veroorzaken. De gevonden scheurpatronen worden vaak
geobserveerd in de praktijk. De aanvullende mechanismen, die meestal driedimensionaal zijn,
laten zien waarom scheurvorming eenvoudig kan optreden. Het beste is dan ook ervoor te
zorgen dat deze mechanismen niet optreden. De belangrijkste parameters in de aanvullende
mechanismen zijn torsiemomenten, aanvullende tangentile momenten, dwarskrachten en hoge
axiale belastingen.
Het uitgangspunt van het ontwerp moet altijd zijn dat de gebruiksfase maatgevend is. Daarom
worden randvoorwaarden gesteld aan de bouwfase. Het dient aangetoond te worden dat die
randvoorwaarden gelden, zowel in het ontwerp als de uitvoering en de exploitatie. In het geval
dat de bouwfase minstens zo maatgevend is als de gebruiksfase zal voor de lining geen
economisch optimaal ontwerp gemaakt worden, omdat de bouwfase slechts een hele korte
levensfase is in vergelijking tot de gehele levensduur van de tunnel.
Een ontwerpfilosofie is opgesteld die de analyse van de lining bevat, ook tijdens de bouwfase.
Het optimale ontwerp volgt uit:
De lining wordt ontworpen op basis van een maatgevende gebruiksfase, zonder
inachtneming van de bouwfase.
De bouwfase wordt zodanig vastgesteld en uitgevoerd dat dit niet resulteert in enige
negatieve invloed op het ontwerp van de lining in de gebruiksfase.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
NOTATIONS
1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
STATE OF THE ART .........................................................................................................3

2.1
CONTRACTS .................................................................................................................3
2.2
DESIGN AND METHODS ................................................................................................4
2.3
APPLIED ENGINEERING MODELS ...................................................................................8
2.3.1
Ring models..................................................................................................8
2.3.2
Structural behaviour in axial direction .......................................................11
2.4
JACK FORCE INTRODUCTION IN THE LINING ................................................................11
2.5
THE OBJECTIVE OF DOWEL AND SOCKET ....................................................................12
2.6
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE MASONRY LAYOUT OF THE SEGMENTED LINING .....................12
2.7
QUALITY LOSS BY CRACKING .....................................................................................13
2.8
ASSEMBLY PROTOCOL ...............................................................................................14
2.9
PLACEMENTS OF THE KEY SEGMENT ..........................................................................14
2.10 ECCENTRIC POSITIONING OF TBM JACKS ...................................................................15
2.11 UNEVENNESS OF THE LATERAL JOINT.........................................................................15
2.12 TOLERANCES OF THE SIZES OF THE SEGMENTS ...........................................................16
2.13 LEARNING EXPERIENCES ............................................................................................16
2.14 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................17
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVE...............................................................19

3.1
THE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................19
3.2
PROBLEM DEFINITION: THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LINING ...............................................20
3.3
THE OBJECTIVE TO CLARIFY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LINING .......................................21
3.4
THE FRAME OF THE SOLUTION APPROACH ..................................................................21
ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR COUPLED RINGS IN SOIL ...............................23

4.1
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................23
4.2
GEOMETRY AND LOADING .........................................................................................23
4.3
SOLUTION STRATEGY .................................................................................................28
4.4
A SINGLE RING...........................................................................................................29
4.5
DEFORMATIONS DUE TO ROTATION IN LONGITUDINAL JOINTS ....................................30
4.6
COMBINING BENDING STIFFNESS, LONGITUDINAL JOINTS AND SOIL............................32
4.7
COUPLED RINGS .........................................................................................................35
4.8
COUPLED RINGS AND ELASTIC SOIL CONTINUUM ........................................................38
4.9
APPLICATION OF THE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS ..........................................................39
4.10 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................39
INTERPRETATION OF THE ANALYTICAL MODELS ...........................................41

5.1
THE NON-LINEAR ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS OF THE LONGITUDINAL JOINTS ..................41
5.2
STRATEGY FOR CALCULATING WITH NON-LINEARITY IN LONGITUDINAL JOINTS .........43
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
ANALYSES OF THE LINING WITH LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS

IN THE LONGITUDINAL JOINTS ....................................................................................46
CONCLUSIONS ON NON-LINEAR LONGITUDINAL JOINT BEHAVIOUR ............................50
INTRODUCTION OF NON-LINEAR BEHAVIOUR FOR BENDING MOMENTS .......................50
5.5.1
Single ring with bending stiffness and longitudinal joints .........................51
5.5.2
Coupled ring system ...................................................................................52
5.5.3
Conclusions on the analytical solution related to the reducing
tangential bending moments.......................................................................54
COMPARING THE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS WITH THEORIES FROM LITERATURE ..........54
THE EQUIVALENT BENDING STIFFNESS OF HOMOGENEOUS RINGS TO PREDICT
DEFORMATIONS..........................................................................................................57
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT .................................................58
CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................59
SEGMENTED LINING MODELS IN SOIL: GENERAL LOADING

COMPONENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ULS............................................61
6.1
THE NORMAL LOAD CASES: LOADING FROM THE SOIL ................................................61
6.1.1
General .......................................................................................................61
6.1.2
Transformations of loading to the radial and tangential component ..........62
6.1.3
Approach 1: Reduction of the vertical soil pressure ..................................63
6.1.4
Approach 2: Equal vertical effective soil pressure.....................................63
6.1.5
Approach 3: Transformation to omit the floating component .................64
6.2
EXAMPLE COMPARING THE LOAD CASES ....................................................................66
6.2.1
Determination of the radial loading............................................................66
6.2.2
Results from the different loading approaches...........................................68
6.2.3
Conclusions with regard to the different approaches for the radial
loading ........................................................................................................69
6.3
THE UPLIFT LOADING CASE ........................................................................................69
6.3.1
Introduction to the behaviour of the grout.................................................69
6.3.2
Introduction of the uplift loading case........................................................70
6.3.3
The application of the uplift loading case in a FEM model .......................72
6.3.4
The influence of the overburden.................................................................77
6.3.5
Conclusions for the uplift loading case ......................................................81
6.4
CONSEQUENCES OF THE UPLIFT LOADING CASE IN RELATION TO THE SEGMENTAL
THICKNESS .................................................................................................................82
6.5
TAIL VOID INJECTION MATERIAL ................................................................................84
6.6
EARLY AGE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE TANGENTIAL LOADING COMPONENT ................84
6.7
NON-LINEAR CALCULATIONS FOR THE RING WITHOUT SOIL INTERACTION ..................85
6.8
NON-LINEAR CALCULATIONS FOR THE RING WITH FULL SOIL SUPPORT .......................86
6.9
THE ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE (ULS) CONSIDERATION ................................................87
6.10 THE LOCAL STABILITY PROBLEM OF THE LINING ........................................................87
6.11 THE SNAP THROUGH PROBLEM ...................................................................................90
6.12 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................91
COMPARISON OF FULL-SCALE TESTS WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS ...93

7.1
GEOMETRY ................................................................................................................93
7.2
LOADING AT ONCE .....................................................................................................94
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.2.1
Deformations due to ovalisation.................................................................94
7.2.2
Longitudinal joints ...................................................................................100
7.2.3
Tangential stresses in segments................................................................102
SEQUENTIAL LOADING AND THE MIGRATION OF FORCES ..........................................104
DEFORMATIONS AND TANGENTIAL STRESSES DUE TO SEQUENTIAL LOADING.
MIGRATION OF THE ACTING FORCES ........................................................................105
THE DIRECTION OF COUPLING FORCES DUE TO SEQUENTIAL LOADING ......................108
CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................110
MEASUREMENTS AND CALCULATIONS OF ASSEMBLING STRESSES AT

THE BRT AND THE SHT ..............................................................................................113
8.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................113
8.2
THE CONVERSION OF MEASURED STRAINS TO STRESSES ...........................................115
8.3
THE NORMAL LOAD CASE AND THE EQUIPPED RING FAR FROM THE TBM.................119
8.4
THE UPLIFT LOADING CASE AT THE BRT..................................................................121
8.5
NON-UNIFORMITY OF THE TANGENTIAL STRESSES....................................................124
8.6
THE EVOLUTION OF THE STRESSES DURING THE ASSEMBLY ......................................126
8.7
THE ASSEMBLING STRESSES .....................................................................................128
8.8
THE INFLUENCE OF TIME ON THE CALCULATED STRESSES FROM MEASURED
STRAINS ...................................................................................................................129
8.9
THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE SHT...........................................................................131
8.10 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................132
OBSERVATION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LINING........................................133

9.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................133
9.2
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLING PROCESS.......................................................................134
9.3
THE OBSERVED DAMAGE AND CRACK PATTERNS .....................................................135
9.4
CAUSES OF DAMAGE AND CRACK PATTERNS ............................................................136
9.4.1
Configuration of the lining and TBM jacks .............................................136
9.4.2
Subsequent loading and misalignments during the assembly ..................139
9.4.3
Consequences of the assembling process .................................................143
9.4.4
Long term issues.......................................................................................145
9.5
CONCLUSIONS FROM MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS OF BUILT TUNNELS
AND THE FULL-SCALE TEST ......................................................................................146
9.5.1
Hypotheses due to the measurements from the SHT................................146
9.5.2
Observations of the SHT ..........................................................................148
9.5.3
Observations of the BRT..........................................................................148
9.5.4
Results from the lining in the full-scale test.............................................150
9.6
CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................151
10 EXAMPLES OF THE ADDITIONAL DAMAGE MECHANISMS...........................153

10.1 THE TORSION OF SEGMENTS .....................................................................................153
10.1.1 Torque mechanism ...................................................................................153
10.1.2 Torque mechanism including the influence of axial jack forces. .............156
10.2 THE UNEVEN SUPPORTS OF THE SEGMENTS IN THE LATERAL JOINTS .........................158
10.2.1 Uneven support at one side of the segment ..............................................158
10.2.2 Uneven support in the middle of the segment ..........................................162
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.2.3 Conclusion on uneven support crack mechanisms...................................166

THE FORCED PLACEMENT OF THE KEY SEGMENT ......................................................166
10.3.1 Analytical rotation model description of the pushed key segment...........166
10.3.2 Example of a forced placement of the key segment .................................168
10.3.3 Results of the frame analysis....................................................................169
10.3.4 Results of the full-scale test and the comparison with other models .......171
10.3.5 Conclusions to the forced placement of the key segment ........................172
DISCUSSION OF OTHER DAMAGE MECHANISMS ........................................................173
10.4.1 Jack force introduction .............................................................................173
10.4.2 Local introduction of forces .....................................................................173
CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................174
11 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY.................................................................................................175
11.1 THE BASIC CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY .......................................175
11.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR A SEGMENTED CONCRETE LINING....................................177
11.3 QUALITATIVE INFLUENCE OF PARAMETERS ..............................................................178
11.4 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY................................................................................................179
12 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................183
REFERENCES
LITERATURE
APPENDIX A: MEASURED STRAINS
APPENDIX B: THEORETICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LINING OF THE BRT AND THE GHT
APPENDIX C: THE LOCAL FAILURE OF THE SOIL SUPPORT OF THE LINING
APPENDIX D: THE LINEAR SOIL SPRING REDUCTION FACTOR BASED ON ELASTIC CONTINUUMS
CURRICULUM VITAE
Notations
A
Ec
Es
EA
EI
G
It
K0
Mi
M
Mu
N
Pi
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
T
Wt
W
=
=
=
concrete surface
Youngs modulus of concrete
soil elasticity
normal stiffness
bending stiffness
shear modulus of concrete
torsional moment of inertia
neutral soil coefficient
tangential bending moment in longitudinal joint i
tangential bending moment at angle
ultimate bending moment
normal force
radial interaction force between adjoining rings through the lateral joint at
position i
torsional moment
elastic section modulus for torsion
elastic section modulus for bending
b
cri
d
ks
kv
lt
r
u
u0
u2EI
u2lj
uc
ut
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(half) segmental width

rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joint at position i
segmental thickness
system stiffness of the lining
coupling stiffness
contact area height in the longitudinal joint
radius of the lining
total deformation
uniform compression
ovalisation by bending of the segments
ovalisation by rotation of the longitudinal joints
compressive deformation
tangential displacement
j
i
s
ui
sd
sw
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
stress correction factor for the soil stresses

angle to longitudinal joint i ( = 0 at the top of the ring)
soil reaction stress
deformation difference of the coupling at position i
rotation angle around the ring centre axial axis ( = 0 at the top of the ring)
dead weight of saturated soil
dead weight of unsaturated soil
reduction factor for bending stiffness of homogeneous rings
poisson coefficient of concrete
horizontal soil pressure
radial stress
tangential stress
h
r
t
r,side
r.top
v
vc
v,eff
w
r.top
0
1
2
T
i
t
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
radial stress at the side of the ring

radial stress at the top of the ring
vertical soil pressure
vertical stress at the centre of the lining
effective vertical soil pressure
water pressure
radial stress at the top
uniform radial compression stress
floating stress component
radial ovalisation stress
shear stress
shear stress due to torsion
rotation in the longitudinal joint i
torsion rotational angle
BRT
GHT
SHT
SRT
WST
=
=
=
=
=
Botlek Railway Tunnel

Green Heart Tunnel
Second Heinenoord Tunnel
Sophia Railway Tunnel
Westerschelde Tunnel
EPB
TBM
=
=
earth pressure balance

tunnel boring machine
LDesign =
frame analysis software specially developed for the analysis of the lining of
tunnels
Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils
Introduction
Observations, measurements and research showed that the tunnel knowledge that is adopted
from foreign countries needs some special care. It was found that the occurring lining behaviour
shows discrepancies with the predicted behaviour. One special issue was clear very early. It
turned out that the assembly of the lining has a dominant influence on the delivered quality of
the lining.
More than a decade ago the Dutch government decided that shield driven tunnels have a high
potential in the crowded Dutch area. To the domestic Dutch construction market this
construction method was totally new. Neither guidelines nor regulations were available.
Analysis of the construction method in foreign countries already delivered a tremendous amount
of experience and knowledge. There is only one main difference with the Dutch circumstances:
the soft soil conditions and high water tables in the Netherlands. This means that a technology is
applied outside its proven applicable boundaries.
The government took the risks that are involved. Two projects were pointed to be experimental.
From these two projects the Dutch construction market had to learn to construct the shield
driven tunnels, in the soft soil conditions with high water tables.
This thesis is initiated after some years of experience with the design, measurements, researches
and observations of shield driven tunnels. This experience shows that structural analysis of the
assembly of the lining is a minor issue in the design nowadays, while the practice shows the
need of tools to support the analysis.
In this thesis it is inventoried, analysed, illustrated and explained what the assembly of the lining
means in structural terms and how it should be taken care of during the design, construction and
exploitation of the tunnel.
Earlier researches involved very advanced 3D FEM analyses of the tunnel behaviour during the
assembly. To validate these models and to validate the hypothesis of the assembly it was decided
to execute full-scale tests on actual tunnel linings. These tests were carried out at the Delft
University of Technology. Besides the full-scale laboratory tests, field measurements were
available to be taken into account. Also a network of experts in the field of shield driven tunnels
from The Netherlands and foreign countries was available.
From interviews with experts on actual shield driven tunnel projects an inventory was made of
experiences in the projects nowadays. The results of the interviews are presented in chapter 2.
From this chapter the exact problem is defined that is dealt with in this thesis. Together with the
main goal and the frame of the solution approach this is presented in chapter 3. The frame of the
solution approach describes in more detail the content of the remaining thesis.
Subjects that are dealt with are a new analytical solution of tunnel rings with lateral couplings
and explicit implemented longitudinal joint rotations. Analyses with analytical models and
frame analyses are carried out to determine relationships between input parameters as load and
the deformations and internal forces in the segments. Structural models make use of load
models. In this thesis some load models are described that are used in practice. Besides that, a
new load model is presented that involves the load due to grouting at the assembling stage. The
main advantage of that presented model is that it can easily be used in, for example, relatively
simple frame analyses of the lining. Comparison is made with the full-scale laboratory test
results and the field measurements at the Botlek Railway Tunnel and the Second
Heinenoordtunnel. The comparison results in a very good agreement between new models and
measurement results.
Analyses of the assembling practice show that basic assumptions often made in design are not
supported by practice. It is shown that deviations of the basic assumptions made can easily result
in quality loss of the delivered tunnel. The content of the thesis results in the understanding that
the assembly is a very complex phase in the lifetime of the tunnel.
In the appendix B a theoretical comparison is given of two fundamental lining design types of
the BRT and the GHT. It turns out that design choices are very much of influence on the quality
losses in the assembly.
In this thesis many illustrations and examples are given to support the textual explanations. The
developed insight in the assembly is a spin off for a more economical optimised lining design.
State of the Art
This chapter gives the state of the art technology in the year 2002, for the design and the
construction of the lining of the shield driven tunnels in the Netherlands. The information in this
chapter is a result of interviews, which have been held with employees involved in recent tunnel
projects. The recent projects are:
The Second Heinenoord Tunnel (SHT).
The Botlek Railway Tunnel (BRT).
The Sophia Railway Tunnel (SRT).
The Westerschelde Tunnel (WST).
The Green Heart Tunnel (GHT).
These projects are meant when in this chapter the term projects is used.
2.1
Contracts
In the projects two main types of contracts can be distinguished between the contractors and the
clients (Figure 1):
The traditional Bid and Built contract.
The Design and Construct contract.
Bid & Built
SHT
Design & Construct

BRT
SRT
WST
GHT
Figure 1. The projects positioned between the two main types of contracts.
The client offers the design of the lining in the Bid and Built contract. The contractor bids a
price upon the requirements formulated by the client. The client is responsible for the project
and the contractor only has an explicitly formulated responsibility within the contract (see
Figure 2).
The client offers main requirements of the lining in the Design and Construct contract. The
contractor designs the lining and bids the price. The contractor is responsible for the project and
the client only has an explicitly formulated responsibility within the contract (Figure 2).
During the construction the role of the client depends on the type of the contract. The intensity
of inspection is increasing when the contract is more based on the traditional Bid and Built
contract. In the Bid and Built contract the requirements are more described explicitly and in
more detail. As a consequence more requirements have to be inspected by the client. In the
Design and Construct only the main requirements are described. As a consequence only
inspections to control these main requirements are carried out.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the responsibilities in the two main types of contracts. It is
obvious that the responsibility of the contractor increases with the Design and Construct
contract. This means that the contractor is more responsible and the risk profile from the point of
view of the contractor increases. Therefore the bid price for the project in a Design and
Construct contract is initially higher compared to the same project in the Bid and Built contract.
4
Bid & Built
Client
Design & Construct

Contractor
Contractor
Client
Figure 2. Project responsibility for the two main types of contracts.
During the negotiations between the contractor and the client, the client wants to know what
risks the contractor involves in his bid price. The client deliberates the risk and will probably
stipulate a price decrease when it is arranged that the client is responsible for the risk. When
agreed the risk is explicitly described in the contract between the client and the contractor.
The main goal of the contract is to realise the project to both parties satisfaction. The client
wants to exploit the qualitative good project within planned time and at (minimal) costs. The
contractor wants to construct the project with the highest profit. In these terms of quality, time
and costs there are risks of unwanted events such as exceeding acceptable limits.
2.2
Design and methods
For all the projects the client has made a preliminary design. In the preliminary design the route,
alignment and geometry are determined on which basic cost calculations, construction planning
and basic requirements are formulated.
In the traditional bid and build contracts the design by the client is more detailed. As a
consequence the requirements are more detailed compared to the design and construct contract.
In this chapter mainly the constructive requirements of the lining of the shield driven tunnel are
of interest. All designs involve the main question: is the lining strong enough to resist the acting
forces, is the stability guaranteed, is the lining watertight and is all of this guaranteed for the
desired lifespan?
In this main question the main constructive requirements for the lining are recognised:
The lining must be strong enough to resist the acting forces for the planned lifespan.
The stability of the lining must be satisfying for the planned lifespan.
The lining must be watertight for the planned lifespan.
It is obvious that the deformations are not explicitly mentioned. From observations it is known
that general deformations of the lining do not result in a decrease of the functionality of the
tunnel. The main functionality of the tunnel is to establish and maintain the possibility of
dedicated transports. Analyses of the projects learn that margins are confined in which
deformations have to occur. Still the deformations are not explicitly mentioned in the main
constructive requirements.
The projects based on the bid and built contract involve constructive requirements, mostly
inspired by the ITA guidelines (International Tunnelling Association) [1]:
1.
Determine the soil characteristics.
2.
Estimate the diameter of the necessary geometry by use of simple approach methods.
Determine the excavation method (including the TBM soil support at the cutter face).
3.
Determine an appropriate engineering model and prove a reliable safety. The safety
verification has to provide a clear indication of the acting parameters, which mainly
influence the safety.
4.
Determine the principle of safety on which risks can be extracted from the design and
described in the contract between contractor and client.
5.
Monitor the construction of the tunnel to verify the safety.
From studies of the COB (centre of underground construction, committee L500 [9]) it has
become clear that for every project analyses have to be carried out to determine which and how
parameters influence the safety of the lining. As a result for each parameter it is clear whether
lower bound, average or upper bound values have to be used for the calculation of the safety.
In all the projects it is clear that the parameters have to be varied to validate that the correct
parameter value is used in the calculations. From the COB it is said that so called unity checks
(each parameter is varied between its lower and upper bound value) have to be carried out to
determine what limit of the parameter value results in the most optimistic or pessimistic safety
approach. Safety is described as the acting forces compared to the strength of the material.
ad 1) Soil characteristics
At all projects the soil characteristics have to be determined in the parameters of average,
minimum and maximum values.
Table 1. Geometrical characteristics.
Project
Internal diameter
(Di [mm])
SHT
BRT
SRT
WST
GHT
7600
8650
8650
10100
13300
Segmental
thickness
(d [mm])
350
400
400
450
600
Ratio
d/Di
1 / 21.7
1 / 21.6
1 / 21.6
1 / 22.4
1 / 22.2
ad 2)
Geometry
The minimal required free area for the transports, including a tolerance of 100mm, is used to
define the minimum internal diameter of the lining. A well-known rule of thumb to estimate the
lining thickness is the internal diameter divided by 20. In the case of high-speed transportation
an additional requirement can be set due to air compression in relation to passing a tunnel with
high speed (e.g. GHT). In Table 1 the geometrical characteristics are given for the projects: the
internal diameter of the lining, the lining thickness and the ratio between the lining thickness
and the internal diameter.
Excavation method
All projects are built in soil with a high water table. The excavation method is based on the
TBM shield principle, which avoid in-stabilisation of soil and penetration of water in the
working area. Within the conditioned space of the TBM the lining is erected. Two main
principles are used to excavate the soil (Table 2): the Slurry Balance Shield (Slurry) and the
Earth Pressure Balance Shield (EPB). The projects did not show a particular different influence
on the lining, except that the EPB method generally shows higher axial jack force introduction
on the lining to forward the TBM (e.g. regular production 40 MN for the BST, 20 MN for the
SRT).
In general the EPB method requires less soil overburden during the construction than the Slurry
method. The main advantage of the EPB method is the smaller overburden and length (cost
reduction) of the entrances. The opinion is that the EPB method has the disadvantage of less
accurately controlled settlements of the soil.
Table 2. Excavation methods.
Project
SHT
BST
SRT
WST
GHT
Excavation method
Slurry
EPB
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
The lining
All projects make use of prefab concrete segments. This principle is adopted from foreign
countries (Germany, France, and Japan). The segments are assembled to form a ring fully
embedded in the soil. An alternative lining principle is the extruded lining or ductile steel
segments. The extruded lining in the Dutch soil is not yet applied. The ductile steel segments
tend to be too expensive, but can be applied when internal forces are generating high tensile
stresses. The prefab concrete segments are distinguished in traditionally reinforced concrete and
fibre reinforced concrete. The fibre reinforced concrete at this moment is experimental and only
applied for a couple of rings as an experiment at the SHT.
ad 3) Engineering model for the lining
All projects, except the GHT, make use of an engineering model based on the German
principles:
Segments are modelled as beam elements.
Longitudinal joints are neglected or modelled as hinges, with or without rotational
stiffness (linear or multi-linear relation between rotation and bending moment).
Interaction between rings in the lateral joins is neglected or is modelled with springs.
Soil loading is modelled as active loading, while soil support is modelled with (discrete or
continuous) elastic springs. Sometimes the elasticity of the springs is reduced at the top of
the lining due to the limited overburden.
This generalised description of the models shows some nuance. The engineering models differ
in all projects and even within a project for the projects phases (e.g. study, preliminary or
detailed design phase). In general the models are more sophisticated in detailed design. In the
preliminary design more simple and basic models are applied.
The engineering models for the lining are used to calculate the internal forces in the segments
due to typical load cases. The basic assumption is that the assembly of the lining is not
normative for the prediction of the safety on the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). In the projects the
applied safety factor is 1.7. This is the margin between the predicted internal forces and the
expected capacity of the lining. The ULS is defined as the exceed of the plastic bending moment
of a ring of the lining. With the models, which have explicitly implemented longitudinal joints, a
prediction can be made of the opening gap in the longitudinal joints, in relation to the applied
gaskets and water pressure.
It is obvious that despite all calculations the applied lining thickness is in between a near range
and has a standard ratio with the internal diameter of 1:21 to 1:22.
The use of the structural engineering models for the lining comes with explicit and also implicit
basic assumptions. Examples of the basic assumptions that are found in the projects are:
Non-normative assembly.
Soil characteristics that are not influenced by the excavation.
Tolerances of segments are ideal.
The erection of a ring results in a perfect round ring.
Materials behaviour linearly elastic.
Longitudinal joints behave as concrete joints.
Lateral interaction between adjoining rings is activated by the dowel and socket and / or
packing materials (plywood / bituminous material).
The soil support reductions at the top of the lining.
Concrete reduced areas (bolt pockets, handle holes) are neglected.
Segments are modelled as beam elements, including the key segment.
Gaskets are neglected in the structural behaviour.
Internal forces in radial and tangential directions are independent of the forces in the axial
direction, but lateral ring interaction is sometimes involved.
Lateral interaction is modelled by springs, generally with linear behaviour.
New rings are erected on perfectly even supports.
During the erection the lateral and longitudinal joints are perfectly closed.
The axial TBM jacks introduce the high axial forces perfectly centred in the segments.
The global axial structural behaviour of the lining does not influence the structural
behaviour in the radial and tangential directions, and is neglected when determining the
structural safety and stability.
The assumption whether or not the axial forces remain during lifespan.
Ad 4 en 5) Safety concept
The design risks of the projects should be interpreted as the basic assumptions in the
engineering models.
The identification of these risks results in requirements in the specifications. For example:
The requirement of very accurate manufacturing and control of the tolerances of the
segmental sizes. As a result the segments might be modelled as beam elements.
The requirement of the verification of the stresses and deformations in the soil to confirm
the assumed soil characteristics.
The requirements of assembly without damages to avoid the introduction of a normative
assembly in terms of forces. As a result the serviceability stage is normative.
The requirements of measuring the structural deformations of the lining to determine that
the predicted deformations agree with the actual deformations. This provides information
about the actual load conditions, which are verified with the assumed load conditions in
the design.
The requirements to implement a maintenance plan. From the actions described in the
maintenance plan leakage and progressive deformations are determined. The results are
verified with the design to verify the load conditions.
These examples of requirements are specified in detail in the bid and built contracts. In the
design and construct contracts not the requirements are defined but the risks which these
requirements affect. These risks are within the contract and in general the contractor has the
responsibility. In the design and construct contract concept the long-term structural behaviour is
always a point of discussion. The contractor is mainly responsible for a shorter period than the
planned lifetime of the tunnel. That is why long term behaviour and maintenance are high
ranked risks for the client.
2.3
Applied engineering models
2.3.1 Ring models

In the preliminary designs the lining is mostly designed by the use of analytical approaches.
Final designs are made by use of at least a frame analysis of two modelled rings with structural
beam elements with some kind of lateral interaction. The main exception is the design of the
GHT where the contractor used a so-called single ring model with a homogeneous lining in a
soil continuum. The main argument to use a homogeneous ring is the occurrence of higher
internal forces as a result of neglecting the influence of the longitudinal joints (the longitudinal
joints would decrease the ring stiffness). By use of the homogeneous rings the lateral ring
interaction does not appear and is therefore neglected. The frame analysis with structural beam
elements is divided by:
Structural beams representing the segments.
Rotational stiffness implementation in the longitudinal joints.
Lateral couplings for the lateral ring interaction.
The active loading.
The passive soil support.
Structural beams representing the segments
In all the projects the segments are modelled as structural beam elements with the characteristics
of the reinforced concrete.
Rotational stiffness implementation in the longitudinal joints
The implementation of the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints is divided into linear and
multi-linear models. In all the projects the rotational stiffness is derived from the theory of
Janen [13] or an equivalent theory. The rotational stiffness is constant when the longitudinal
joints are closed. This is called the linear branch of the behaviour. The rotational stiffness
decreases when the longitudinal joints are opening. This is called the non-linear branch of the
behaviour. Some projects only involve the linear branch, some involve also parts of the nonlinear branch, implemented by discrete multi-linear branches. If the rotational stiffness is
assumed to be zero then a hinge is implemented. Table 3 shows the assumed simplification of
the longitudinal joints in the models of the several projects.
Table 3. Rotational stiffness.
Project
SHT
BRT
SRT
WST
GHT
Rotational stiffness
Hinge
Linear
Linear, including stiffness reduction due to concrete creep
Linear, including stiffness reduction due to concrete creep (values
due to Mnnig/Netzel).
Neglecting longitudinal joints
Couplings in the lateral joints

In all projects, except the GHT, the lateral ring interaction is implemented in the models by use
of coupling springs. Those springs describe the behaviour of the dowel and sockets and the
lateral friction through the packing materials (plywood, bituminous materials). The influence of
gaskets is neglected. The springs are radially orientated and can only handle normal forces. The
characteristics of the springs are linear. The location and characteristics of the radial coupling
springs varies in the several projects (Table 4).
In both projects WST and SRT additional calculations are made due to adaptations during the
construction. In both projects it was decided to make use of packing materials in the lateral
joints. Therefore recalculations are made to verify the influence of the lateral interaction changes
caused by the packing materials.
Table 4. Location and characteristics of the applied lateral coupling springs.
Project
SHT
BRT
SRT
WST
GHT
Location coupling implementation

Dowel and socket
Dowel and socket
Dowel and socket
Dowel and socket / recalculations also
including the plywood material
Non
Radial normal stiffness

100.000 N/mm
150.000 N/mm
60.000-160.000 N/mm
30.000-90.000 N/mm
Non
It is obvious that discrepancies exist between model and actual behaviour. An example is the
neglecting of the tolerance that exists in the dowel and socket construction. In practice the dowel
and socket are manufactured with a tolerance. This means that the dowel and the socket do not
match perfectly together, but a relative translation should occur before the dowel and socket are
in contact to each other. The implementation of this tolerance could result in a more optimistic
approach for the internal structural forces. The tolerance is neglected because it can not be
foreseen that indeed the tolerance is present after erection. As a consequence the conservative
approach is used that they are always in contact. Moreover it seems that dowel and socket result
in high internal stress developments on which the capacity of the segments has to be designed. It
is very obvious that a tolerance on the contact is applied by the reason to avoid damages.
10
Active loading
In all projects many load cases are applied in the models to derive the normative internal forces.
For some locations along the alignment of the tunnel the active loading due to surroundings is
established. The load cases also involve load cases due to loading from the inside of the lining.
Active loading due to surroundings
Primary soil pressures with or without additional pressure at the surface (e.g. due to
elevation, excavation and shipwreck), including soil layers. The soil pressure is given in
terms of vertical and horizontal pressure including the active horizontal soil coefficient.
The vertical and horizontal pressures are recalculated to radial and tangential pressures. In
all projects the opinion is that the tangential pressures have influence on the internal forces
in the lining, although in the projects not always the full tangential component is applied.
At the SHT and the WST the tangential pressure is neglected and at the BRT only a
reduced part of the tangential pressure is applied in the design. At the WST it has
explicitly been determined that the tangential pressure is of minor influence on the internal
forces. At the SHT it was argued that the tangential pressures would not occur due to the
hardening of the liquid grout injections around the lining. At the BRT it is argued that only
a reduced part of the tangential pressure occurs due to the soil arc around the lining. In
general the opinion is that when implementing the tangential soil pressure this must be in
combination with the implementation of the tangential soil support. The tangential soil
support is of positive influence on the internal forces.
A next load case is the grout pressure around the lining. It is mostly assumed that the grout
pressure is symmetrically hydrostatic around the lining. This pressure is assumed to be
hardly normative. If it is assumed that the grout pressures are not symmetrical around the
lining it might result in normative load cases. In general the opinion is that grout pressures
can not be established with high accuracy.
Floating of the lining
The lining floats due to the primary soil pressure and grout pressure. Due to the vertical
translation the soil pressure above the lining increases and the soil pressure under the lining
decreases. The floating translation halts when the floating load component is in balance with the
activated and deactivated soil pressures. In some models this behaviour is implemented
explicitly by involving the active floating load. Other models recalculate the active loading to
eliminate the floating. The active load at the top half of the lining is now in balance with the
active load at the bottom half of the lining. Due to this active loading the lining deforms, but
does not float. This load case is mainly used when interests are only in the internal forces and
the relative deformations of the lining itself.
Active loading from the inside of the lining
The load cases involving loading from the inside of the lining might consider:
Machinery supporting the TBM, traffic loads, collision load.
Explosions and fire.
Temperature.
Passive soil support
All models involve soil supports to stabilise the lining. This means that the soil reduces the
internal forces in the lining due to active load. The lining deforms due to the active load. The
11
soil support is (de-)activated by this deformation, which has an influence on the resulting load
causing internal forces in the lining. The (de-)activation of the soil supports is implemented by
the passive soil support. Some models implement the soil support by a (homogeneous) soil
continuum, others by use of discrete soil springs. The general opinion is that the discrete soil
springs are less advanced than the soil continuum.
The soil support is divided into a radial and a tangential soil support. As mentioned before, the
tangential soil support is implemented when the active tangential soil pressure is taken into
account.
2.3.2 Structural behaviour in axial direction
Table 5. Type of analysis of the structural lining behaviour in axial direction.
Project
SHT
BRT
SRT
WST
GHT
Analysis
Non
Qualitative
Qualitative
Non
Non (by contractor)
In all projects it is known that the structural behaviour in the axial direction might cause an
influence on the internal forces of the lining, e.g.:
Soil settlements.
Floating behind the TBM.
Connection to the service shafts.
The structural behaviour in the axial direction might change the lateral interaction between
adjoining rings, joints might open causing leakage and additional internal forces occur causing
less safety. Nevertheless the axial structural behaviour is hardly analysed (Table 5). Some
engineering judgement results in adaptations of the design, like the flexible shaft connection of
the lining at the WST. Most advanced analysis is found with the client side of the GHT. Here
advanced FEM calculations of thirty rings are carried out to derive information about floating
behind the TBM and the connection of the lining to the shafts. As a result it has turned out that
the connection to the shafts is problematic and is therefore a main risk to the client. The client
does not solve this problem due to the design and construct contract with the contractor.
At the BRT the connections to the shaft are pointed to be problematic due to soil settlements.
Still a hard connection is made of the lining to the shafts and the problem is not solved.
In general the opinion is that the structural behaviour of the lining in the axial direction is hard
to implement in models and that effects of the axial structural behaviour are badly influenced by
soil settlement [5]. Since soil settlements increase by years not much knowledge is available of
long-term effects.
2.4
Jack force introduction in the lining
In all projects it is recognised that the jack force introduction in the segment can be an important
load case in relation to the quality of the assembled lining. Jack forces can easily cause cracking
12
in the concrete segments. To analyse the effect of the jack force introduction premature analyses
are carried out at several projects. Still observations during the construction show the
appearance of cracking in the concrete segments due to jack force introduction. The cracking
mainly appears at the concrete reduced areas like bolt pockets and handle holes. It is obvious
that in the analysis these concrete reduced areas are not involved explicitly. Also a even support
of the segments is assumed where observations and measurements of the supports show very
often the existence of unequal supports in the lateral joints.
2.5
The objective of dowel and socket
In all projects, except the GHT, dowels and sockets are applied in the lateral joints between the
adjoining rings. At the BRT, SRT and WST strong constructive dowel and socket systems are
applied. At the SHT the strength of the dowel and socket are smaller.
In general the dowel and socket systems are applied because of limitation of unwanted
differences in deformation between adjoining rings. These differences are unwanted as they can
lead to gaskets not being closed and leakage results. The tolerance of the translation limitation
has shown to be a very important parameter. During the construction of the SHT it became clear
that tight tolerances of the dowel and socket easily result in contact between the dowel and the
socket. As a result damage did occur. The opinion was that the tight tolerance resulted too soon
in the contact between the dowel and the socket. The resulting damage is a quality loss of the
lining. Quality loss has to be avoided and that is why the tolerances are increased. Leakage is
also seen as quality loss of the lining and has to be avoided. On the one hand damage and
cracking may result in quality loss and on the other hand deformation difference might result in
leakage which is quality loss. The tolerance of the dowel and socket has to be tuned to avoid
quality losses.
At the GHT there is not a dowel and socket system applied between the adjoining rings. It is
expected that deformation differences between adjoining rings are small and that therefore
leakage is avoided. During the erection of the segments the accuracy of placement must be high.
It is expected that when the rings are in the soil the development of deformation difference is
very small. The contractor is convinced that the geometry does not need the dowel and socket
system in the lateral joints.
It is very hard to apply a gasket with an increased width in the joints. First the available space to
apply the gasket is limited, second the forces by compressing the gaskets would increase.
2.6
The objective of the masonry layout of the segmented lining
The segments of the lining are erected in such a layout that longitudinal joints are not in line for
the adjoining rings. This is the so-called masonry layout of the segmented lining. The question is
why segments are erected this way.
In general the specific layout is adopted from known projects in foreign countries. There might
be a problem with the gaskets on the spots where four segments come together when the ring is
assembled with in-line longitudinal joints. At the GHT sometimes in-line longitudinal joints are
foreseen, but at maximum for three adjoining rings. This has to do with the possibility to follow
the alignment of the TBM. The problem in the spots where four segments come together is
13
solved with a secondary gasket, the hydrophobic gasket. This type of gasket swells when it is in
contact with water. This gasket must ensure water tightness but it is unknown whether this is
guaranteed for the lifetime, or that additional investments are necessary after years to repair the
malfunctioning gaskets.
Sometimes the opinion is that the masonry layout increases the system stiffness, without any
argument why this should be necessary (it might decrease deformation and increase internal
forces). Another reason for the masonry layout is that the positions and axial force introduction
of the TBM jacks limit other layouts. In all the projects the masonry layout is initially adopted
without consideration of alternative layouts.
2.7
Quality loss by cracking
In all projects cracking is seen as quality loss, because of the increase of the probability of
leakage and the influence on the long-term behaviour of the segments (deterioration). In general
cracking must be avoided because of the possibility of leakage and repair and maintenance
investments.
The opinion is that cracking predominantly appears at the time or just after erecting the
segments and passing the tail void when the TBM pushes the newly erected ring out of the
TBM. The cracking is mostly initiated in the concrete in reduced areas like the bolt pockets and
the handle holes, the corners of the segments, in the areas where the axial jack forces are
introduced and near the longitudinal joints. Besides, most cracking seems to appear at the
segment side where the TBM jacks are acting.
In the projects the following causes for cracking are mentioned:
TBM jack forces (general amplitude, amplitude differences of adjoining jacks, location of
force introduction in relation to segments, eccentricity, secondary lateral forces).
Concrete reduced areas (bolt pockets, handle holes, dowel and socket).
Geometrical (size) and assembly tolerances of segments in the contact areas between
adjoining segments (especially the erection causes uneven segmental supports, local hard
supports).
Tail void loading and passage of the ring during excavation by the TBM.
Further hypothetical phenomena are mentioned which might cause stress concentrations that
result in cracking:
Trumpet shape of the lining during erection and excavation (different diameter of rings
by different loading during the assembly.
Peel-effect (The secondary deformations by the high axial forces in combination with the
trumpet shape).
Extreme floating of the lining.
As dominant location for cracking the following zones are mentioned:
Near the key segments.
The top of the lining.
The bottom of the lining.
The side of the segments where the TBM jacks act.
14
When rings are embedded in hardened grout and soil there is no additional cracking observed.
During the design cracking is not predicted in the models used. Nevertheless cracking appears.
Cracking is seen as quality loss. Additional repair costs result. Normally cracks with leakage and
cracks with a width larger than 0.2mm are repaired. In practice this results in the repair of all
visible cracks.
The repair is applied by injections of polymer into the cracks. The injection continues until the
polymer comes up to the concrete surface. Mostly the concrete surface is washed to avoid
pollution of the concrete face to guaranty good stitch of eventual shotcrete (fire protection).
From measurements at the SHT it is known that in the assembling stage high internal forces
might occur that exceed crack limits. Neglecting the assembling stage in the design does not
seem realistic. Practical methods to analyse the assembling stage are not present. Especially the
absence of those methods is a reason that the assembly is not analysed during the design.
2.8
Assembly protocol
At all projects the erection of segments takes place without any advanced measurements of
supports and accuracy of placement. This means that the worker has to place the segment by his
own judgement only. As a consequence the accuracy very much depends on the person who is
doing the job. The worker refers the placement to the already erected former ring. This former
ring is already deformed. The newly erected ring can not be erected in the perfect theoretical
circle as assumed during design.
The understanding increases that longitudinal joints must be well closed during erection, to
avoid high local stress spots when this new ring is pushed out of the TBM during the
excavation. It turns out that taking care of the well-closed longitudinal joints results in less
quality loss of the segments by cracking and damages.
Sometimes the initial shape and the deformations of the rings are measured by convergence
measurements. These measurements indicate how deformations are developing in time. The
observed deformations do not show one particular tendency. At the WST especially at the top of
the lining deformations are observed, at the SRT especially at the top and the bottom and at the
BRT at the top, bottoms and sides of the lining.
2.9
Placements of the key segment
It is known that the placement of the key segment might go along with some problems.
Sometimes there is not enough space to place the last segments and the key segment is forced to
fit. Sometimes the available space is too wide and large initial deformations occur when this
ring is pushed out of the TBM. At the BRT and the SRT it is observed many times that the
available space for the placement of the key segments is too tight. The enforced fitting of the key
segment sometimes resulted in cracking of the adjoining segments of the key segment. At the
WST considerable damage occurred near the key segment. Therefore a minimum space width
with an accuracy of 5mm is required now, before placement of the key segment.
15
Another problem of the placement of the key segment occurs in relation to the gaskets. When
forcing the key segment to fit, lateral forces are acting on the gaskets. As a consequence the
gaskets might roll up. This has a detrimental effect on the water tightness. To solve problems
with the roll up of the gaskets it was decided to implement new gaskets with increased stiffness.
In general the enforced placement of the key segments must be avoided.
2.10
Eccentric positioning of TBM jacks
The jacks are sometimes eccentrically placed on the segments. Due to the very high forces this
might cause problems in relation to the quality of the assembled segments. Next to the eccentric
placement, also secondary lateral forces are introduced if the jack forces are not acting in line
with the lining. At the WST sometimes the jacks are eccentrically placed to minimise the
trumpet shape and peel effect.
During the design the eccentricity of the jack force introduction is analysed to determine the
maximum allowable eccentricity. These analyses do not involve the concrete reduced areas like
bolt pockets and handle holes, uneven supports and the lateral component of the jack forces.
Despite the analyses still quality losses occur.
2.11
Unevenness of the lateral joint
During the design it is assumed that the supports for the new segments are perfectly even. This
is the ideal situation and as a result the internal forces are limited. From measurements of the
lateral joints it has become clear that the supports are often uneven. The unevenness might be
caused by:
- Unequal adjoining jack forces around the lateral joint.
- The global bending moment due to the TBM steering.
- These loads in relation to the elastic deformation, creep of the concrete, elastic and plastic
deformation of packing materials and unequal radial deformations of rings.
Due to the uneven supports the high axial jack forces are not supported well. As a consequence
the internal forces are different from the calculated values. The higher internal forces can exceed
the critical values for cracking.
From measurements of the evenness of the lateral joints it is sometimes decided to equalise the
lateral joint. Applying additional packing material in the lateral joints (e.g. additional plywood
or steel plates) does this. At the BRT this method is applied, but it is not convincing that this
equalisation improves the quality of the assembled segments. At the SRT and the WST the
observed evenness did not require equalisation. It is mentioned that at the BRT relatively high
jack forces were acting due to the EPB shield method, while the SRT and WST apply the Slurry
TBM. It also turned out that the global bending moment due to steering of the TBM is higher at
the BRT due to the soil characteristics and alignment. The occurred unevenness might be
appeared as a result of the higher jack forces in combination with the large global bending
moment from the TBM steering.
16
2.12
Tolerances of the sizes of the segments
The segmental sizes have to satisfy very tight tolerances. The requirement of these tolerances is
based on the principle of as accurate as possible. The absolute values for the requirements
come from the reference DS833 of the German Railways (DB). The requirements must be
applied to the moulds of the segments. The required tolerances are much more demanding than
the accuracy of the erection of the segments. Therefore the required tolerances of the segments
are not normative for the accuracy of the assembled ring. The required tolerance of the segment
manufacturing is very costly. In several projects the initial demands for the tolerances are made
less strictly to provide realistic manufacturing.
2.13
Learning experiences
The projects seem to learn from experiences of former projects. The clearest example is the
adjustment of the tolerances of the dowels and sockets. At the SHT these tolerances were very
tight. As it has become clear that much quality loss is caused by this requirement and that less
demanding tolerances improve the quality of the segments, the required tolerances for the
dowels and sockets at the BRT, SRT and WST are less demanding. At the GHT the dowel and
socket system was omitted at all.
The next example is the use of packing materials in the lateral joints. In the first instance the
SHT was constructed by use of bituminous packing material. To minimise the quality loss this
bituminous material was replaced by plywood material. It was expected that unevenness in the
lateral joint could be controlled better with plywood. As a result the segments are better
supported, the axial forces are causing controlled internal forces and the friction forces through
the plywood material limit the deformation differences between the adjoining rings.
At the BRT the plywood was applied from the beginning of the construction of the lining. In
combination with the less demanding requirements for the dowel and socket tolerances less
quality loss was observed compared to the beginning of the construction of the SHT.
In the design of the SRT also less demanding tolerances of the dowel and socket were applied.
The packing material was initially still the bituminous material. During the construction of the
lining some problems occurred with quality losses of the segments. Cracking and damage
appeared at the top of the lining and the lining after the TBM started to float extremely. Analysis
shows that insufficient shear capacity in the lateral joint was the main cause of the extreme
floating of the lining behind the TBM. By replacing the bituminous material with plywood
packing materials the problems of floating are mitigated. Also the amount of damages in the top
zones of the lining decreases. The adaptation of the type of grout materials and the grout
pressure had minimal influence on the floating of the lining behind the TBM. The finally applied
lining system has plywood packing materials and the dowel and socket system with less
demanding tolerances.
At the WST initially an innovation was implemented to increase the bearing capacity of the
dowel and socket system. The idea is to lead the axial forces directly through the dowels.
Through pre-stressing the shear capacity increases. Shear contact tolerance in the dowel and
socket was also applied with less demanding tolerances. During the construction of the lining it
was soon clear that not all the dowel and socket systems were directly in contact in the axial
17
direction. The axial forces migrated through the lining. The main reason is that the lateral joint
is not even enough because of the realised accuracy of the segments erected. As a result
significant damage appeared and the design was adapted. In the lateral joints plywood packing
material is applied to avoid the axial forces handled through the dowel and socket. As a
consequence the axial forces are led through the plywood packing material. The dowel and
socket since then have the traditional function to limit the radial deformation difference between
adjoining rings to avoid leakage. In favour of the application of the plywood material the design
calculation has been redone. It turns out that the bearing capacity of the lining is safe enough to
apply the plywood packing material. Finally again the bearing capacity of the lining of the WST
is fulfilled with the same lining principle like the SHT, BRT and SRT.
The adaptations of the lining further increased at the GHT. Refraining to apply dowel and
sockets prevents the problem of the damage due to contact in the dowel and socket. Next,
plywood packing material is not applied. The shear resistance in the lateral joints is generated by
contact of the concrete of the two adjoining segments without any packing material. The basic
idea is that the loading and geometry limit the deformation differences of the adjoining rings and
that therefore a limitation of the deformation differences is no longer required. As a consequence
of omitting the plywood the deformation in the axial direction by deformation in the lateral
joints is limited. It is expected that the axial deformations result in much more even support in
the lateral joints for the segments. This is a positive effect for damage control. Next to the first
sealing with the compression gasket a secondary sealing with hydrophobic rubber is applied to
ensure water tightness.
Another main difference with other projects is the position of the jacks on the segments. In the
projects the jack are positioned in a way that three pairs of jacks are in contact with a segment
(at the two longitudinal joints of the segment and in-between the two longitudinal joints). But at
the GHT only two pairs of jacks are in contact with the segment (at one quarter and three
quarters of the segment). The axial forces are introduced more accurately and it is expected that
the lateral joint shows much more even supports. Even supports have less influence on cracking.
The high jack forces are always introduced in a zone far from the longitudinal joints. This
increases the bearing capacity.
2.14
Conclusions
The interviews with persons involved in the projects give a general idea of the design and the
result of the construction of the concrete segmented lining of shield driven tunnels in the
Netherlands. A collective problem in the projects is the quality loss during the construction of
the lining, by cracking and damage of the concrete segments. The available structural
engineering models do not provide tools to analyse the damage mechanisms that occur during
the assembly. Actually this is a result of the wish to design the lining in a normative
serviceability stage. Therefore the basic assumption is drawn that the assembly should be a nonnormative stage. However the practice shows that the assembly is very important in the case of
the quality loss.
It is obvious that quality loss by cracks and damages mainly occurs during construction of the
lining. In the TBM the segments are erected to form a ring. The TBM is a very advanced
machine designed by specialists in the field of mechanics and machinery. Specialists in the field
of civil engineering design the lining. It might be a coincidence that just at the contact interface
18
of these two fields of specialism the quality loss occurs. On the other hand it is questionable
whether or not both disciplines communicate with respect to the content of both disciplines and
the consequences of design choices made.
Problem definition and objective
3.1
The problem description
19
The construction of large diameter shield driven tunnels with segmented concrete linings in the
Dutch soil conditions has been practised for a few years now. Observations and analysis of the
construction of these projects show a discrepancy between the theoretically predicted behaviour
and the actual behaviour of the lining. Especially during the assembly a divergent behaviour is
observed. An analysis of the design approach and methods shows that the applied engineering
models do not have explicitly implemented mechanisms that seem to appear in the assembly.
Because of the inadequate engineering models and the phenomena that appear during the
assembly an early quality loss of the constructed lining might appear. This involves risks in
many ways. If the predicted behaviour is strongly mismatched with the actual behaviour, then
the safety of the lining is not determined in an appropriate way. Actually the safety of the lining
is unknown.
Longitudinal
joint
Segment
Ring joint
Radial
deformations
Linear
Non linear
Initial cracks
No cracks
Linear
Non linear Dowel contact

Sliding
Ideal
More critical
Assumed in design
Compressive
Opening
failure
Gasket leakage
Yielding
Crack growing Local Failure
Dowel
failure leakage
SLS
Global failure
stability
Failure
function
Safety
decrease
ULS
Observed in practice
Figure 3. Safety development of the lining.
Common design models refer to the lining in the soil in the serviceability stage, under the basic
assumption that the load history (assembly) does not influence the internal forces in the
serviceability stage and that the former internal forces do not exceed the internal forces in the
serviceability stage. This is, of course, the most economic method to design the lining. The
models in the serviceability stage are used to check the internal forces with the capacity of the
lining. It turns out that these types of models are generally used to predict the behaviour of the
lining in the ultimate limit state (ULS), but they are not appropriate to analyse the lining for loss
of quality during the assembly.
Tunnel linings should be designed in such a way that the serviceability state is governing. Only
if this condition is satisfied, the economic optimum can be reached. In many publications,
dealing with in-situ measurements and corresponding analyses, the assembly stage is regarded to
provide the governing criteria for design. However, if this would be true, the design would be
uneconomic by definition, since the stage of assembling is only a minor part of the life of the
20
structure. Therefore, the design of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and the operational
protocols must be such that the state of the assembly is not governing.
The analysis of the lining in the serviceability stage is mostly based on the basic assumption of
the ideal situation shown in Figure 3. The shape of the lining is perfect, there is no cracking at
all, the joints are well closed. This is actually the basic assumption that the assembly of the
lining is excluded from the analysis. From this initial situation the loading of the serviceability
stage is applied. The result of the calculation with the engineering model is a set of internal
forces, which are checked with the capacity of the lining. The observation and analysis of the
assembly shows that the initial situation for the calculation is not that ideal. Figure 3 shows that
in practice already cracking and deformations occur, that probably influence the initial situation
for the calculation. The horizontal axis in the figure shows that the influence of the assembly
could be a decrease of the distance between the actual behaviour and the limit states, which is a
decrease of the safety of the structure.
In the construction practice one is aware of the influence of cracking and damages to the lining.
The main problem is the initiation of the deterioration process of the reinforcement. That is why
crack and damage observations take place. Mostly the cracks are repaired by chemical injections
and damages like spalling are refurbished as far as possible. These are additional aggravating
handlings in an already very complicated logistic process. Besides, the mechanisms that cause
these quality losses might be of influence on the internal forces in the assumed normative
serviceability stage.
The examination of the engineering models also shows a behaviour contrary to common
structures like bridges. When a bridge is not strong enough, the cross section of the bridge is
adapted until the capacity of the bridge is adequate. The design load on the bridge is barely
changing as a result of the resistance of the bridge. The engineering models for tunnels are
implemented with a soil support that influences the structural behaviour of the lining
enormously. It turns out that the stiffness ratio between the lining and the soil is of main
influence on the internal forces in the lining. If the thickness of the lining increases, the stiffness
of the lining increases. This implies that the internal forces in the lining increase. Analyses of
the lining in the serviceability stage with this type of models should result in far more slender
linings than are actually applied in the projects nowadays. Nevertheless linings are applied with
a greater thickness. This is done based on practical experiences in the assembly of the lining
during former projects but mostly without extended fundamental arguments.
New insight shows that the assembly of the lining is of great importance because of the quality
loss that mainly occurs during this stage. The insight in the mechanisms that occur in the lining
during the assembly should be improved to understand the discrepancy of the real behaviour of
the lining with the existing engineering models.
3.2
Problem definition: the assembly of the lining
It turns out that the assembly is of main influence on the quality of the lining. Existing
engineering models are not suitable to analyse the lining in the assembly. To be able to
economically optimise the lining it has to be understood why the assembly is so important and
how the assembly should be handled in the process of the design and the construction of the
lining.

3.3
21
The objective to clarify the assembly of the lining
The objective of this thesis is to analyse the behaviour of the lining in the assembly. From this
analysis it becomes clear why the assembly is so important. The dominant parameters are
determined which influence the lining behaviour. Models are analysed to determine the
behaviour they describe. Additional mechanisms are determined which are basically not
implemented in common design models.
The described models and mechanisms are validated with measurements from the full-scale
laboratory test at the Delft University of Technology, measurements from the BRT and
measurements from the SHT.
A consideration is given on how the design and the construction of the lining should involve the
assembly.
3.4
The frame of the solution approach

Lining capacity
ULS
SLS
Design parameters
Geometry Loading
(lining +
support)
Engineering models
Full Scale
Laboratory test
- quantitative
- observational
BRT
- quantitative
- observational
Analytical solution
Frame analysis
Additional mechanisms
GHT
- predictions
- observational
SHT
- qualitative
- observational
Figure 4. Visualisation of the topics in this thesis that result in the design philosophy of the lining of shield driven
tunnels.
To understand the behaviour of the concrete segmented lining in both serviceability and
assembling stage the dominant parameters are extracted from an analysis of the lining. An
extended analytical analysis is done to determine the behaviour of the lining, which interacts
with the soil in the serviceability stage (chapter 4). This analysis involves the main parameters
known from already existing engineering models. The result of this analysis is a new analytical
model that also handles explicitly the influence of longitudinal joints and ring interaction
through lateral joints.
To understand the influence of the several parameters in the new analytical engineering model
an interpretation of the model is made in chapter 5. In the practical use of the engineering
models the actual circumstances of loading from the soil are translated to values that are used in
the engineering models. The results of the models are used to validate with the lining capacity.
In chapter 6 attention is given to general load cases in the serviceability stage. Next, a new load
22
case is introduced that describes external loading from grouting on the lining in the assembly.
This load case is called the uplift loading case. Also attention is given to non-linearity in the
analyses of the lining.
In chapter 7 the results of the full-scale laboratory test at the Delft University of Technology are
used to validate the general behaviour of the lining in relation to model results. Attention is
given to direct loading of the total tunnel length and the influence of sequentially loading the
tunnel ring by ring which is more in accordance to the real assembly in practice. In chapter 8 the
models are applied to real situations in the BRT and the SHT. Measurement results are
compared with model results. It becomes clear that the assembly might have a tremendous
influence on local stress developments.
The problem in this thesis is pointed to the lining in the assembly stage. It becomes clear that the
assembly stage is a very complex stage in the lining behaviour with a wide range of damage
mechanisms. An extended research to mechanisms provides insight into the difficulties that
occur during the assembly.
In chapter 9 an overview is given of observed and expected influences of the assembly on the
lining. In this chapter over thirty causes are drawn that might result in discrepancies between
predicted and actual lining behaviour. In chapter 10 some examples are given on why the causes
from chapter 9 influence the lining behaviour and how these influences can be predicted by an
analytical consideration. These mechanisms are basically not implemented in engineering
models. That is why they are called the additional mechanisms.
The new theories and the validations are used in a consideration how to deal with the assembly
of the lining in the design of the lining of the shield driven tunnels. This results in a design
philosophy, which is described in chapter 11. Also an overview is given of the main design
parameters and how they influence the lining behaviour. General conclusions are given in
chapter 12.
In the appendix B a theoretical comparison is given of two fundamental lining design types of
the BRT and the GHT. It turns out that design choices are very much of influence on the quality
losses in the assembly.
The developed insight in the assembly is a spin off for a more economical optimised lining
design. The design of the TBM can not be separated from the lining and the design of the lining
can not be separated from the design of the TBM.
Analytical solutions for coupled rings in soil
4.1
Introduction
23
A wide range of engineering models is available to investigate the reliability of the lining in the
serviceability stage. Different types of engineering models are applied depending on the design
phase of the lining (e.g. preliminary design, final design). Engineering models can be classified
as analytical, empirical, structural beam and FEM models. Analytical models have the advantage
to be relatively understandable, transparent and easy to use.
The available analytical models are mostly valid for one single ring of segments, sometimes
surrounded by an elastic soil continuum. In general the segmented ring is modelled as a
homogeneous ring with equivalent bending stiffness. When using different types of models the
disadvantage of these analytical models becomes obvious: the internal forces are not predicted
well, because the interaction of the adjoining rings is omitted.
This chapter presents a new analytical solution for coupled rings with lateral joint interaction,
including explicit longitudinal joints, surrounded by an elastic soil continuum (for full solutions
and background reference is made to [2]). The final analytical solution is given for a geometry
equal to the lining of the Botlek Railway Tunnel in the Netherlands, because of the availability
of measurement data of in situ monitoring. Furthermore this lining is used in a full-scale test
facility in the Stevin Laboratory of the Delft University of Technology. The results of the new
analytical solution are compared with the results of measurements obtained from this full-scale
test in the following chapters. It will appear that results from the new analytical solution and the
measurements from the full-scale test agree very well.
4.2
Geometry and loading

Bolt
pocket
Packing
Material
Handle
hole
Dowel
Longitudinal
joint
Lateral
joint
Segment
Ring
Figure 5. Lining definitions.
24
Fradial
radial
radial
uradial
Radial
Tangential
Ftangential
tangential
tangential
utangential
Mtangential
Maxial
Axial
Faxial
axial
axial
Figure 6. Definition of the axis.

Lateral joint
Lateral joint
Packing
material
(A)
(B)
Segment
Reduced
contact
thickness
Dowel
Segment
Gasket
Segment
Longitudinal
joint
Segment
Segment
Socket
(C)
Figure 7. Principle of (A) reduced contact area, (B) compressive gasket and packing material and (C) the dowel and
socket system.
The segmented concrete lining of a shield driven tunnel is subdivided into several parts (Figure
5):
The rings. The lateral joint is in-between the adjoining rings.
- Axial forces (Figure 6) are introduced in the rings through contact areas in the lateral joints.
For example the axial forces are a result of the driving forces of the TBM.
- The contact areas are the consequence of the use of packing materials like plywood or
bituminous materials or concrete pads (Figure 7).
- The material properties and the force conditions of the packing materials might result in
shear resistance in the lateral joint when the adjoining rings deform differently. The shear
force acts radial and tangential.

-
25
Sometimes a dowel and socket system is applied in the lateral joints. This system helps to
centre the segments during the erection and limits too large deformation differences between
adjoining rings.
The rubber gaskets are applied in the lateral joints. At both rings a gasket is glued. The axial
forces compress the gaskets against each other when the rings are assembled. The lateral
joint is watertight as a result of the compression of the gaskets. For an adequate sealing the
gaskets need to be sufficiently compressed. The material properties of the gasket should be
qualified for the circumstance where applied. Sometimes hydrophobic gaskets are applied.
These gaskets swell when in contact with water. The two gaskets are compressed to each
other as a consequence of the swelling.
(Temporary) bolts are applied in the lateral joints. The bolts result in local pre-stressing of
the sealing. During the construction of the lining the axial forces could diminish for a while.
The local pre-stressing by the bolts avoids leakage. A secondary function of the bolts is the
security against falling of a segment when the jack force on the segment is released. In the
end most of the bolts are removed. Sometimes the pre-stressing by bolts is used to ensure a
durable watertight joint, for example near shafts.
Packing material
Figure 8. Photograph of segments with packing materials.
The rings are assembled of prefab segments. The longitudinal joint is in-between the segments
in a ring.
- Tangential forces are introduced in the segments through the contact areas in the longitudinal
joints. This contact area might have a reduced thickness compared to the segmental
thickness. As a consequence the tangential forces are introduced in a concentrated way. The
longitudinal joint is acting as a concrete hinge when adjoining segments are relatively
rotating to each other. This concrete hinge has resistance against the rotation and bending
moments occur. The rotational stiffness depends on the contact area (further to other things
like the material stiffness), the tangential normal force and the rotation itself. With
increasing rotations the resistance might decrease.
26
-

Rubber gaskets are applied in the longitudinal joints to provide a watertight longitudinal
joint. The effective gaskets have to be well compressed. Of course hydrophobic gaskets
might also be applied in the longitudinal joints.
(Temporary) bolts are applied in the longitudinal joints for the same reason as in the lateral
joint.
Concrete segments.
- The concrete prefab segments are manufactured with very high accuracy. The very high
accuracy of the segments is required to avoid local stress concentrations when forces are
introduced in the segments without any packing materials (e.g. the longitudinal joints).
- The concrete segments are provided with handle holes. These holes are necessary to erect the
segments by use of an erector.
- Boltholes are applied to be able to bolt the segments when erected.
- The segments are reinforced, mostly with steel bars. Depending on environmental conditions
that influence the deterioration of the concrete, the concrete cover on the steel bars is 35 to
50mm.
- Reinforcement to improve the resistance against bending. Bending might occur due to the
forces during handling (manufacturing, transportation, erection of the segment), during and
just after the assembly (grout injection load, TBM load, soil load) and in the serviceability
stage (soil load, traffic load, temperature, exceptional loads like fire and explosion).
- Reinforcement to improve the resistance against the introduction of a local force. The local
force introduction results from the axial forces of the TBM and the tangential forces.
- Reinforcement to improve the splitting resistance of concrete in reduced areas like the
handle and bolt holes.
- Reinforcement to increase the capacity of the dowel and socket system to resist lateral forces
in the lateral joints. Sometimes the concrete cover to the reinforcement is reduced (less than
35mm) at the dowel and socket to improve the capacity. Special attention is needed for the
durability in this case (deterioration of the concrete when the concrete cover is very small).
Table 6. Geometrical dimensions of the BRT (Botlek Railway Tunnel).
Internal diameter
Thickness of lining: d
System radius r
Width of segment: 2*b
Number of segments per ring
Assumed concrete Youngs modulus
Assumed elastic modulus of soil
Assumed rotational stiffness longitudinal joints cr
Assumed friction stiffness lateral joint spring kv
8650mm
400mm
4525mm
1500mm
7 + keystone
40.000MPa
38MPa
7.225*1010Nmm/rad
100.000N/mm
In Table 6 the geometrical dimensions of the BRT in the Netherlands are given. In this chapter
the particular influence of the keystone will be neglected. A ring of segments is assumed to
consist of 7 equal segments with longitudinal joints in-between (Table 6). The first longitudinal
joint in the first ring is situated at the top of the ring. The second ring also has 7 equal segments.
The first longitudinal joint of the second ring is situated a half segment rotated compared to ring
1 (Figure 9). The segmental layout has a configuration like masonry structures (adjoining rings
are rotated to each other over half a segment).
Segment 1
i=0
i=7
i=1
r=4525mm
i=6
27
i=0.5
i=6.5
Segment 1
i=5.5
i=1.5
i=2
i=4.5
i=4
Ring 1
i=3
Longitudinal
joint
i=2.5
i=3.5
Soil continuum
Ring 2
Figure 9. Geometry of lining: i is location index of longitudinal joints.
Coupling force Pi
Ring 2
Ring 1
Longitudinal
joint
Schematic overview of
segments in rings with
interaction in the
lateral joints between
rings
Packing material
Coupling spring, kv
EI,EA
EI,EA
Structural model of
segments, coupling
spring and rotational
spring in the
longitudinal joint
Rotation spring, cr
Figure 10. Packing materials and coupling forces in the lateral joints.
r,top= 0.448 MPa
r,side= 0.411 MPa
r, top
r, side
0
2
=
=
=
=
0= 0.4295 MPa
2= 0.0185 MPa
radial stress at the top

radial stress at the side
uniform radial compression stress
radial ovalisation stress
Figure 11. Loading subdivided into a uniform load (0) and an ovalising load (2). Floating (1) is omitted.
28
In the lateral joint between the two rings packing materials are present (Figure 10). At these
spots both rings are in contact. If segments of adjoining rings deform differently at these spots,
coupling forces due to friction occur (called Pi).
Loading will only provide compression and ovalisation. Floating is omitted in this chapter. The
assumed loading values in Figure 11 correspond to the loading used in the full-scale test in the
Stevin Laboratory of the Delft University of Technology [3].
4.3
Solution strategy
Since the segmental layout corresponds to that of a masonry wall (adjoining rings are rotated to
each other over half a segment) a system of two rings with half a segmental width is considered.
To be able to formulate the analytical solutions of those two interacting half rings, first one ring
is considered. Finally both half rings are taken into account in the analytical solutions.
The deformation of a ring with longitudinal joints is subdivided into three components:
- Uniform compression u0 due to the uniform stress 0.
- Ovalisation by bending of segments u2EI due to the ovalisation stresses 2.
- Ovalisation by rotation in the longitudinal joints u2lj due to the ovalisation stresses 2.
- (1 is a stress due to floating. Floating is omitted).
If both rings 1 and 2 deform equally, ring interaction will not occur. Ring interaction only occurs
because of friction in the joint between the rings. To generate friction the rings have to
differentially deform. When both rings 1 and 2 are loaded by the same loading configuration, the
compression nor the ovalisation due to bending of segments will cause differential deformation
of the rings. Only deformation by rotation of the longitudinal joints u2lj causes differentiation of
deformation.
If deformations by rotation of longitudinal joints are able to be calculated for both rings, the
difference in deformation between the two rings is known at the locations where the interaction
forces will act (location of packing materials). The deformation difference at position i is called
ui. The coupling force generated by ui is called Pi and the relation between the coupling force
and differential deformation is Pi=kvui, where kv is the friction stiffness (linear spring stiffness
value of e.g. plywood on concrete segments).
Assuming that Pi can be calculated, the influence of Pi on the bending moments can be derived.
Now new bending moments will cause new coupling forces. Finally bending moments are
generated by 2 and coupling forces due to ui. This system of dependencies is the analytical
solution of the coupled system:
(1)
u = u 0 ( 0 ) + u 2 EI ( 2 ) + u 2lj ( 2 , u i )
where
u
=
u0
=
u2EI =
u2lj =
total radial deformation

uniform compression
ovalisation by bending of the segments
ovalisation by rotation of the longitudinal joints
29
It will appear that the results of this approach match very well with the results of the
measurements from full-scale testing.
4.4
A single ring
The uniform compression (uniform displacement) of a single ring is calculated by:

Nr 0 r 2
u0 =
=
Ec A Ec d
where
N
= tangential normal force
r
= radius of the lining
Ec = Youngs modulus of concrete
A
= concrete surface
d
= segmental thickness
(2)
Considering the soil, the initial uniform loading is reduced by the elastic reaction of the soil. It is
assumed that the elastic reaction of soil can be calculated by the very simple relation ([2] and
Appendix D):
E
(3)
s = s u 0
r
where
Es = soil elasticity
s = soil reaction stress
Both equations can be rewritten with 0=0-s to:
r2
(4)
u 0 = 0 (1 0 )
Ec d
with
1
0 =
(5)
Ec d
+1
Es r
In this equation is defined as the correction factor for the soil stresses, taking into account the
unloading of the soil around the lining due to the elastic deformation. The part represents the
part of the load, which disappears by the deformation of the soil. The remainder represents the
load really exerted on the lining:
j = j (1 j ) [j=0 or j=2]
The ovalisation of the ring due to deformation of the segments only (by bending, excluding the
influence of the longitudinal joints) is calculated by [8]:
4 2r 4
cos(2 )
(6)
u 2 EI ( ) =
3 Ec d 3
where
= rotation angle around the ring centre axial axis ( = 0 at the top of the ring)
30
On a very similar way 2 is introduced for the load part that is reduced by soil deformation:
1
2 =
(7)
3E c d 3
1
+
4E s r 3
Calculating u2EI for a ring embedded in soil means simply calculating 2, reducing 2 with the
reduction factor 2 and calculating the structural behaviour of the ring (deformations, internal
forces). Appendix D gives some background on the linear stiffness Es based on a soil
continuum.
It turns out that 0 is of minor influence compared to 2. Therefore 0 is taken zero.
4.5
Deformations due to rotation in longitudinal joints
Assume a rotational stiffness cr in the longitudinal joint (Figure 10). The relation between the
rotation in the longitudinal joint and the bending moment in the longitudinal joint is calculated
by:
M ( )
i = i
(8)
cr
where
Mi = tangential bending moment in longitudinal joint i
cr
= rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joint
= rotation in the longitudinal joint i
i
Now an important basic assumption has to be made. To be able to estimate the rotation in the
longitudinal joint, the bending moment in the joint has to be known. To calculate the bending
moment the following equation is used [8]:
1
(9)
M = 2 r 2 b cos(2 )
3
where
M = tangential bending moment at angle
b
= half segmental width
This relation actually is only valid for homogeneous rings without any discrepancies in bending
stiffness. Without proof here, it is stated that a lining with equal bending stiffness sections (in
this case seven segments) and equal rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints has a tangential
bending moment directly following from this equation. The rotation i of every longitudinal
joint can be derived, if 2 is known. In 5.5 and [2] it is shown that this is valid.
The deformation of the ring appears due to the rotations in the longitudinal joints. The question
is now what influence a rotation has on the radial deformations.
For example: what is the vertical radial deformation of the ring? Figure 12 shows a ring with
one longitudinal joint at the angle i. Consider only the part of the ring between 0 and 180 .
Suppose that the top of the ring is not rotating nor translating. The contribution of the rotation of
the longitudinal joint at position i to the vertical displacement at the bottom of the ring is the
rotation i times the perpendicular distance to the vertical axis:

u y ,bottom =
sin( i ) r
31
(10)
0
sini.r
Longitudinal
joint
i
i
270
(-90 )
90
Uy,bottom
180
Figure 12. Contribution of the joint rotation to deformations.
Naturally this is only the contribution of one longitudinal joint. The total average vertical radial
displacement will be (as function of 2):
A
(11)
u 2top ,lj =
cos(2 i ) sin( i )
2 0< i <180
with:
r 3b
(12)
A= 2
3c r
In a very similar way the average horizontal radial displacement can be assessed (or even
displacements on an axis with arbitrary angle).
Figure 13. Displacements due to a frame analysis (bottom displacement is 2.348mm upward).
Example 1: Calculate the average radial top displacement of 1 ring with longitudinal joints
0.0185 * 4525 3 * 750
From equation (12): A =
= 5.93
3 * 7.225 * 1010
32
In Table 7 equation (11) is solved. The result is the radial deformation of the top of the ring due
to the rotations in the longitudinal joints. Figure 13 shows the result of a frame analysis. The
figure shows the total field of radial deformations.
From the comparison of the results from the analytical solution with those of a frame analysis
[2], an excellent agreement is observed (-2.32mm compared to 2.34mm).
Table 7. Solving equation (11).
cos(2 i ) sin( i )
0
-0.17
-0.88
0.27
i
0
1*360/7 = 51.42
2*360/7 = 102.86
3*360/7 = 154.29
cos(2 ). sin( ) = 0.78

i
0< i <180
u2top ,lj =
4.6
5.93
* 0.78 = 2.32mm
2
Combining bending stiffness, longitudinal joints and soil
The influence of the reduction 2 by the soil of the load 2, has to be calculated from the average
values of u2top and u2side. The average displacement at the top of the ring due to ovalisation is the
summation of the two parts of deformation: u2EI(=0)+u2top,lj. For the side of the ring:
u2EI(=90 )+u2side,lj
The soil reduction is accounted for 2:
+ u2,side
E u
2 = s 2,top
2
r 2
with
B + Cy
r
B + Cx
r
, u2,side = 2
u2,top = 2
r
r
Es
Es
+ B + Cy
+ B + Cx
Es
Es
with
4r 4
B=
3E c d 3
Cy =
r 3b
r 3b
;
cos(
2
)
sin(
)
=
C
cos(2 lj ,i ) cos( lj ,i )
lj ,i
lj ,i
x
6cr 90< lj ,i <90
6cr 0< lj ,i <180
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
If 2 has been determined, the distribution of the loading on the lining is known and the design
values can be calculated. The reduction factor 2 can also be calculated from the factors B, Cy
and Cx:
2 =
1
1+
Es ( B +
r
Cx + C y
)
2
For radial deformations at an arbitrary angle the following equation can be used:
0 < lj , i <
4 r4
2 cos(2 )
u = A (cos(2 lj ,i ) sin ( lj ,i )) cos( )u y 0 sin ( )u x 0 +
3 Ec d 3
This radial deformation can be append to the uniform compression in equation (2).
33
(17)
(18)
The translation values ux0 and uy0 are used to translate the field of displacement from the top.
Remember that at first instance the top was held (no translation and rotation were assumed in
the top). The translation values will cancel the influence of this assumption. The translation
values ux0 and uy0 can be assessed by first calculating u with ux0=0, uy0=0 and an infinite
segmental Youngs modulus (Ec=). Within a symmetric lining configuration (e.g. first
longitudinal joint at =0) the value ux0 is the average value of u=90 and u=-90 . The value uy0 is
the average value of u=0 and u=180 . For non-symmetric configurations solutions are available
in [2], but not presented here.
Example 2: Calculate the deformations of a ring taking into account the influence of bending
stiffness, longitudinal joints and an elastic soil continuum
4r 4
4 * 4525 4
From equation (15): B =
=
= 218.36
3E c d 3 3 * 40000 * 400 3
From equation (16):
45253 * 750
r 3b
cos(2 lj ,i ) sin( lj ,i ) =
* 0.78 = 125
Cy =
6cr 0< lj ,i <180

6 * 7.225 *1010
(Value -0.78 from example 1)
45253 * 750
r 3b
cos(2 lj ,i ) cos( lj ,i ) =
* 0.722 = 115.7
Cx =
6cr 90< lj ,i < +90

6 * 7.225 *1010
(Value 0.722 calculated in a similar way as value -0.78 from example 1)
From equation (14):
4525
218.36 + 125
*
= 1.64mm , u side = 1.62mm
u top = 0.0185 *
4525
38
+ 218.36 + 125
38
38
1.64 + 1.62
Equation (13): 2 =
= 0.74
4525 * 0.0185
2
This means that 74% of the initial loading disappears by the soil deformation. The lining will
have to bear 26% of the initial stresses, so 2=0.0185(1-0.74) = 4.81*10-3MPa.
The reduction factor directly from (17):
1
1
2 =
=
= 0.74
4525
r
1+
1+
115.7 + 125
Cx + Cy
38 * (218.36 +
)
)
Es (B +
2
2
34
Determine the translation values uy0 and ux0:

4.81 * 10 3 * 45253 * 750
From equation (12): A =
= 1.54
3 * 7.225 * 1010
Solving equation (11) for the radial top (=0 ) displacement:
u = 0 = A * 0 = 0
Solving equation (11) for the radial bottom (=180 ) displacement is shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Solving equation (11).
cos(2 lj , i ) sin(180 lj ,i )
0
-0.174
-0.878
0.271
-0.781
(...)
=
0
51.4
102.8
154.3
0< lj , i <180
u =180 = 1.54 * 0.781 = 1.20mm
Next the translation values uy0 and ux0 have to be solved. As stated before uy0 is the average
value of the radial top and radial bottom displacements: uy0=-0.60mm (average value of 0mm
and 1.20mm). In a similar way the correction factor uxo can be calculated: uxo=0.77mm.
Now the total radial deformation can be estimated. As an example the deformation at =100 is
calculated by use of equation (18).
Table 9. Solving a summation part of equation (18).
cos(2 lj ,i ) sin(100 lj ,i )
i
0
51.4
0.985
-0.166
(...) = 0.819
0< lj , i <100
Solving equation (18) itself:

u =100 = 1.54 * 0.819 cos(100) * 0.60 sin(100) * 0.77
4
4525 4
* 4.81 * 10 3 * cos(2 *100) = 1.59mm
3 40000 * 400 3
When calculating several angles, a plot can be made of the field of the radial displacements
(Figure 14). Figure 14 shows a very good agreement between the analytical solution and the
results of the frame analysis [2].

2
u=100
1.5
Analytical solution
u_rad [mm]
Frame analysis
0.5
C alculated point
0
-0.5 0
35
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
-1
-1.5
-2
phi [degrees]
Figure 14. Radial deformations determined by the analytical solution and a frame analysis, including segmental
bending stiffness and discrete rotational stiffness for longitudinal joints (the dot is the calculated point at =100 ).
4.7
Coupled rings
The next step to be made is involving the lateral ring joint interaction. The discrete spring
interaction in the lateral joint (lateral interaction takes place through the discrete joint material in
the lateral joints, Figure 10) and two rings are reference. It is assumed that the lateral joint
springs are situated at every longitudinal joint (at i=0, 0.5, 1, .., 6.5). If the rings 1 and 2 are
loaded by 2 without lateral joint interaction, due to rotations in the longitudinal joints the field
of displacement in Figure 15 and Figure 16 occurs. Both the same deformations from rings 1 and
2 are presented together in Figure 17.
The observation of these shapes reveals a double mirror symmetric deformation difference
between the rings over both the horizontal and vertical axis in Figure 17. To predict the total
deformation difference field, only 1 sector (e.g. 0 to 90 ) has to be considered (Figure 19). The
next observation is that the lateral interaction forces are oriented into the equal direction over the
diameter (Figure 18)
For the bending moments in the segment near an interaction force Pi a relation has been derived
(see [2]):
1
2
(19)
M pi = Pi r (1 )
2
where
Pi
= Radial interaction force between adjoining rings through the lateral joint at position i
The interaction force Pi is the result of a differential displacement ui of ring 1 and 2 at point i.
The interaction occurs as a result of a spring deformation. Pi can be written as:
(20)
Pi = k v ui
where
= coupling stiffness
kv
ui = deformation difference of the coupling at position i
1
2
(21)
M pi = k v r (1 )u i
36
In the theory it is assumed that Pi only influences the bending moments really close to the point
i. It has turned out (see [2]) that this assumption gives a very good approximation of the system
behaviour.
Figure 15. Shape ring 1.
Figure 17. Shape ring 1 and 2 together.
Figure 16. Shape ring 2.
Location 1st longitudinal

joint ring 1
uh=0
M=0
Location 1st longitudinal

joint ring 2
0
uh=0
M=0
P
Figure 18. Equally directed interaction forces at
i=0 and 3.5.
0.5
1
90
Location 2nd
longitudinal joint
ring 1
1.5 Location 2nd
longitudinal joint
ring 2
Figure 19. Considered section of rings with longitudinal

joints.
37
The tangential bending moment near i is determined by superposition of Mi(Pi) and Mi(2):
1
1
2
(22)
M i = 2 br 2 cos(2 i ) k v r (1 )u i
3
2
Here a cross relation applies. Bending moments depend on ui while ui depends on the
deformation from the rotations in the longitudinal joints due to the bending moments. Still this
equation can be solved.
The rotation at a longitudinal joint is:
M
i = i
(23)
c ri
First the displacement of ring 1 at the top (=0 ) is determined (only considering the ring
section between 0 and 90 , (Figure 19) with the boundary condition that uy at 90 is zero:
(24)
u 0,1 = 0.5 0 r + 1 r (1 sin 1 ) = 0.5r 0 + 0.219r 1
Next the displacement of ring 2 at the top (=0 ) is calculated with the boundary condition that
uy at 90 is zero:
(25)
u 0, 2 = 0.5 r (1 sin 0.5 ) + 1.5 r (1 sin 1.5 ) = 0.56r 0.5 + 0.025r 1.5
Now the differential displacement between the rings 1 and 2 is calculated:
u 0 = 0.5r 0 0.56r 0.5 + 0.219r 1 0.025r 1.5
(26)
For all points i within 0 90 the relation is determined. Now a system of equations results
that is written as:
[S ].{u} = { f }
(27)
or fully (for derivation see [2]):
0.09 Br + 1
0.9 0.039 Br
0.62 0.07 Br
0.22 0.087 Br
0.0045 Br u 0 0.0387 Ar
u 0.0716 Ar
0
. 0.5 =
u1 0.0376 Ar
0.078 Br
1
0

0.14 Br 0.078 Br
1
u1.5 0.0352 Ar
0.1Br
1
0.039 Br
0
(28)
with:
br 2
(29)
A= 2
cr
k r
(30)
B= v
cr
It is obvious that the rotational stiffness is equal for each longitudinal joint. Of course the
rotational stiffness of each longitudinal joint can be implemented separately. Examples of this
are given in chapter 5.
To solve the system of equations the stiffness matrix [S] has to be inverted. Now {u} is
known:
1
(31)
{u} = [S ] .{ f }
From {u} the parameters Pi, Mi, i, ui are solved.
38
Example 3: Calculating a coupled system taking into account the influence of the longitudinal
joints
Filling in and solving the system of equations (28) by use of (29) and (30), results in:
u 0 0.47
u 0.32
0. 5 =
[mm]
u1 0.13
u1.5 0.36
The equations (20) and (21) result in the values of the coupling forces and the tangential bending
moments in the rings 1 and 2 (Table 10), at the locations of the couplings. The results show a
good conformity between the analytical solution and the results of the frame analysis. The
tangential bending moments in-between the points i can be determined by interpolation.
Table 10. Coupling forces and tangential bending moments (Values within () are results from a frame analysis, see
Figure 17).
[ ]
0
25.7
51.4
77.1
i
0
0.5
1
1.5
4.8
Pi
[kN]
47 (47)
-32 (39)
-13 (-18)
36 (45)
Mi Ring 1
[kNm]
56 (61)
85 (82)
-10 (-14)
-114 (-118)
Mi Ring 2
[kNm]
133 (129)
34 (37)
-31 (-28)
-56 (-53)
Coupled rings and elastic soil continuum
The next challenge is to implement the elastic soil continuum into the coupled system. From
example 3 the deformation differences ui are known. With ui the rotations in the longitudinal
joints can be expressed as a function of 2. It is even possible to express ui as a function of 2.
For example at point i=0 for ring 1:
(32)
u 0 = 0.47 mm
2 = 0.0185MPa
0.47
* 2 = 25.4 2
(33)
u 0 ( 2 ) =
0.0185
1
1
2
(34)
M 0 = 2 br 2 k v r (1 ) * 25.4 * 2
3
2
Now 0 is calculated by simply dividing M0 by cr. For u0 in ring 1 it is written:
(35)
u 0,1 = 0.5r 0,1 + 0.219r 1,1 = (0.149 A'2.01B)r 2
For u0 in ring 2 it is found:
u 0, 2 = (0.11A'1.6 B)r 2
(36)
with
A' =
br 2
cr
(37)
39
The theory assumes again a load reduction by the soil deformation. It is assumed that the system
deforms with an average top displacement based on u0,1 and u0,2 to implement soil pressure
reduction:
u 0,1 + u 0, 2
(38)
u 0, av =
= (0.13 A'1.81B)r 2
2
The average radial deformation at the side of the system is equal to the average radial top
deformation, but in the opposite direction. The involvement of the soil reaction reduces the
initial stress 2 by 2 where (for full deliberation see [2]):
1
2 =
1
+1
E s (0.119 A'1.473B)
To calculate the structural system of rings, just reduce 2 with 2 to involve the soil reaction in
the system.
4.9
Application of the analytical solutions
The analytical solution described in this chapter is interpreted in the following chapter 5. There
are also comparisons with measurement data. In the year 1999 and 2000 the first full-scale tests
on the Botlek Railway segmented lining have been realised in the test facility in the Stevin
Laboratory of the Delft University of Technology [3]. The formulated analytical theory in this
chapter is applied to that specific geometry and the results are compared with the measurement
data. The result of the comparison is described in chapter 7.
The construction of the two projects the SHT and the BRT involved a measurement program
that delivered measurement data of internal forces in the lining. For the BRT the measurement
data is especially concentrated on forces during the assembly of the lining. The measurement
data at the SHT gives an overview of the development of forces on the long term. Both sets of
data are used in a comparison with model results. Especially the measured data at the BRT are
used in a comparison with the analytical solutions.
4.10
Conclusions
In literature many analytical models are published to analyse the forces in the lining of shield
driven tunnels. The analytical solutions in general have in common that they only involve a
single ring, mostly without explicit consideration of the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints.
In this chapter the approach is described how to implement explicitly the rotational stiffness of
the longitudinal joints and the lateral interaction between rings for a lining system in an elastic
soil continuum. For the full deliberation and many examples reference is made to [2].
The new analytical solutions for segmented linings of shield driven tunnels, with explicitly
integrated longitudinal joints, lateral ring joint interaction and elastic soil continuum offer a very
powerful tool to calculate the lining behaviour in the serviceability state. The solutions provide a
transparent understanding of influences of parameter and structural design values as internal
forces and deformations. In [2] a wide range of calculations has been carried out to derive the
boundary conditions for applying the analytical solutions.
40
41
Interpretation of the analytical models
This chapter deals with the interpretation of the analytical models of chapter 4. The goal is to
examine dependencies between input parameters and the output of the analytical models.
Examples are given in chapter 4 and [2] for the lining with longitudinal joints with equal
rotational stiffness. It is possible to apply the analytical models with non-linear behaviour of the
longitudinal joints. This means that the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints depends on
the rotations and the occurring tangential bending moments in the longitudinal joints. As a
consequence each longitudinal joint can have an unique value for the rotational stiffness. In this
chapter it is shown how this problem is solved in the analytical solutions. It is also shown what
value of the rotational stiffness can be used according to the theory. The analytical solutions
given in chapter 4 are based on the basic assumption that the tangential bending moments are
known, independent from the bending stiffness of the ring. As stated this basic assumption is
mathematically not valid when used in a situation with a varying bending stiffness (e.g. nonlinear behaviour of longitudinal joints). Analyses are carried out to show the discrepancy when
the basic assumption is still used in the non-linear situations.
The non-linearities of the longitudinal joints are applied in example calculations. A variety of
calculations is compared to analyse the influences of the non-linearity of the longitudinal joints.
In literature many analytical solutions are found for homogeneous rings in soil. The analytical
solutions of chapter 4 are compared to some of these models from literature.
In the design practice it is observed that engineers predict soil behaviour (like surface
settlement). In the models they use, the lining is mostly modelled as a homogeneous ring
without longitudinal joints and a particular bending stiffness. It is shown how the bending
stiffness of a ring in such models can be determined based on the analytical solutions of chapter
4. Finally conclusions are set on the models behaviour and the dependencies of the structural
results of the input parameters.
5.1
The non-linear rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints

I
II
III
140
line from stage II
120
M [kN m]
100
80
Reduced
Stiffness
60
Reduced Stiffness
with plastic stresses
40
20
0
0
Constant
Stiffness
0.005
0.01
phi [rad]
=cu
0.015
0.02
Figure 20. The three stages of the behaviour of longitudinal joints: the tangential bending moments as a function of
rotation in the longitudinal joint (given N).
42
The rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints has many times been described in literature. In
[2] a mathematical approach is given for the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints. Based
on the bi-linear approach of concrete (elastic part and plastic part), there are three stages
recognised in the description of the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints. The first two
stages are often found in literature (e.g. [13]). Assuming an increasing rotation in the
longitudinal joint, given a normal force, the following stages are distinguished:
I.
A constant rotational stiffness until M>Nlt/6:
bl 2 E
cr = t c
12
where
lt = contact area height in the longitudinal joint
II. The rotational stiffness is non-linear but the ultimate compressive strains are in the elastic
branch, until =c:
2M
9blt E c M(
1) 2
Nlt
cr =
8N
III. The rotational stiffness is non-linear and the ultimate compressive strains are in the plastic
branch, until =cu (for cr see [2])
Figure 20 is a visualisation of the three stages of the behaviour of the longitudinal joints for the
tangential bending moments as a function of the rotation. In the first instance the longitudinal
joint is closed. The tangential bending moment is increasing very rapidly when the rotation
increases. Then the joint starts to be open. The increase of the rotation results in the tangential
bending moment to increase less. In the third instance the concrete plastic stresses occur. The
tangential bending moment increases even less when the rotation increases. Figure 20 also
shows very clearly the discrepancy between the stages II and III. Many calculations in practice
only consider stage I. More advanced calculations also consider stage II. Almost no calculation
considers stage III. From the figure it is clear that stage II has limited validity. But using the
rotational stiffness from equations of stage II, during stage III may lead to just small
discrepancies in the calculated tangential bending moments and the rotations. One has to keep in
mind that recalculation of the concrete stresses has to be based on concrete plastic stresses since
stress developments are enormously reduced in stage III (Figure 21).
I
II
III
140
Sigma [Mpa]
120
line from stage II
100
80
60
40
Reduced
Stiffness
20
Reduced Stiffness
with plastic stresses
0
0
Constant
Stiffness
0.005
0.01
=cu
0.015
0.02
phi [rad]
Figure 21. Concrete compressive stresses as function of the rotation in the longitudinal joint (given N).

5.2
43
Strategy for calculating with non-linearity in longitudinal joints
In chapter 4 an example is given of how to calculate coupled rings in soil. This calculation has
the basic assumption of a constant value for the rotational stiffness assuming linear behaviour of
the longitudinal joints (stage I). This means that the rotational stiffness is equal in each
longitudinal joint and that the rotational stiffness is not varying due to progressive loading. As
drawn in the formulations [2] it is possible to make the same calculation with non-linear
longitudinal joint behaviour (stage II and III), as described in chapter 4. The following strategy
shows how to set-up calculations with this non-linear behaviour.
It was written that ring deformations can be subdivided into deformations due to rotations in the
longitudinal joints and to deformations of the concrete segments. Only deformations due to
rotations in the longitudinal joints cause the coupling forces in the ring joints. The total
deformation of the ring causes the deformation of the supporting soil.
The introduction of the non-linear behaviour of the longitudinal joints goes along with the
problem that it is unknown what deformation remains in the longitudinal joints. But the
rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints is depending on the deformation in the joint. This
problem is solved by iteration.
The calculation strategy is:
1. Assume the rotational stiffness in each longitudinal joint to be a constant value.
2. Calculate the system of rings with the assumed rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints,
without the soil reduction 2, but including the bending stiffness of the segments. Find a
relation between ovalisation and ovalisation loading: this relation is called the system
stiffness ks.
u2 = ks 2
3. Implement the soil reaction.
Eu
u 2 = k s ( 2 s 2 )
r
4. Examine the reduction factor 2.
5. Reduce the original ovalisation loading 2 to 2=2(1-2).
6. Calculate the system of rings with the new ovalisation loading 2.
7. The calculation results in the occurring rotations and tangential bending moments in each
longitudinal joint. The occurring tangential bending moment divided by the assumed
rotational stiffness results in the occurring rotation in the particular longitudinal joint.
Compare the occurring rotation with the theoretical rotation that belongs to the assumed
rotational stiffness.
8. Adapt the rotational stiffness for each longitudinal joint (ci) and restart from step 2 if the
comparison of calculated and used values does not satisfy.
9. If the comparison does satisfy, the calculation is ready.
The basic equation for the coupled ring has to involve the values of the rotational stiffness of
each longitudinal joint to implement the non-linearities in the longitudinal joints. Figure 22
shows the stiffness part of the basic equation.
44
0.09 Br + 1
0.9 0.039 Br
0.62 0.07 Br
0.22 0.087 Br
0.1Br
0.0045 Br u 0
u
0
. 0.5
u1
1
0
0.078 Br
1
u1.5
0.039 Br
0.078 Br
0.14 Br
Figure 22. Original stiffness matrix.
The factor B is rewritten to

B' '
B=
ci
B' ' = k v r
and ci is the rotational stiffness of the specific longitudinal joint.
The next step is to make this stiffness parameter explicit in the matrix [S].
0.09 B' ' r
+1
cr 0
0.9 0.039 B' ' r
cr 0
0.07 B' ' r

0.62
cr 0
0.087 B' ' r

0.22
cr 0
0.1B' ' r
c r 0.5
0.039 B' ' r

c r1
0.078 B' ' r

c r 0.5
0.14 B' ' r
c r 0.5
0.078 B' ' r

c r1
0.0045 B' ' r
c r1.5
(39)
where
(40)
B' ' = k v r
Now the loading part of the basic equation is rewritten to make explicit the influence of the
rotational stiffness of each longitudinal joint. Reformulation gives:
0.165 0.1176 0.016 7.5 * 10 3
) A' r
+
(
c0
c0.5
c1
c1.5
0.0387 Ar
0.0716 A' r
0.0716 Ar
c
0
=
(41)
0.1287 0.091
0.0376 Ar
(
) A' r
+
c0
c0.5
0.0352 Ar
0.16 0.164 0.032

(
) A' r
+
+
c0
c0.5
c1.0
where
(42)
A' = 2 br 2
The equation part (39) is the stiffness part [S] and (41) is the loading part of
[S ]{u} = { f }
45
This system of equations is solved with linear algebra techniques. The result is the vector {u}
from which the coupling forces, the tangential bending moments and the longitudinal joint
rotations are found. Also the longitudinal joint opening at the outside of the ring, the concrete
compressive stresses in de longitudinal joints and the contact length in the longitudinal joint can
be examined.
In the first iteration of the calculation the relation between ovalisation and loading has to be
found. From this the system stiffness ks is derived:
u
ks = 2
2
The used value for u2 is the average value of the ovalisation. For example:
- u0,1 is the absolute top deformation of ring 1.
- u0,2 is the absolute top deformation of ring 2.
- u1.75,1 is the absolute flank deformation if ring 1.
- u1.75,2 is the absolute flank deformation if ring 2.
- u2,EI is top en flank deformation due to the segmental bending stiffness EcI.
The average value u2:
u 0,1 + u 0, 2 + u1.75,1 + u1.75, 2
+ u 2, EI
u2 =
4
Notice that the influence of the tangential bending stiffness of the segments is included.
Now involve the soil support in the total system:
Eu
u2 = k s ( 2 s 2 )
r
k s 2
u2 =
k E
1+ s s
r
The reduction factor 2 is the part of the ovalisation loading 2 taken by the soil and is written
as:
E u
E
ks
2 = s 2 = s (
)
k s Es
r 2
r
1+
r
The original 2 loading is reduced to 2 = 2(1-2) and the system of equations is recalculated
without further consideration of the soil support.
As a result of the recalculation the rotations in the longitudinal joints are known. These rotations
are verified with the theoretical values of the constant and the reduced longitudinal rotational
stiffness.
The calculation is finished if the verification does satisfy the used parameters for the rotational
stiffness in the longitudinal joints. From the vector {u} the internal forces and deformations are
determined.
46
New estimations are done for the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints if the verification
does not satisfy. These estimations are done by the use of the tangential bending moments from
the last calculations. With the new rotational stiffness values the calculation is restarted.
5.3
Analyses of the lining with linear and non-linear rotational stiffness in the
longitudinal joints
The analyses in this paragraph are made with the analytical solutions from chapter 4 to illustrate
the influence of non-linear behaviour of the longitudinal joints. The geometry is from the BRT.
The uniform compressive loading is equal in all calculations (0 = 0.4295MPa), while the
ovalisation loading is increasing. In the graphs on the horizontal axis the ovalisation loading 2
is given as the percentage of the uniform compressive loading.
From the analytical solutions the following results are presented:
- The tangential bending moments.
- The maximum radial ovalisation.
- The coupling forces.
- The percentage of the total tangential bending moments that is caused by the couplings.
- The maximum opening on the outside of the ring in the longitudinal joints.
In each graph there are six lines representing different models:
A Ring system without interaction in the lateral joints (kv=0) and constant rotational stiffness
in the longitudinal joints (stage I).
B Ring system with interaction in the lateral joints (kv=100.000N/mm, called 1kv) and constant
stiffness in the longitudinal joints (stage I).
C Ring system without interaction in the lateral joints (kv=0) and non-linear rotational stiffness
in the longitudinal joints (stage I to III).
D Ring system with low interaction in the lateral joints (kv=50000N/mm, called 0.5kv) and
non-linear rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints (stage I to III).
E Ring system with interaction in the lateral joints (kv=100000N/mm, called 1kv) and nonlinear rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints (stage I to III).
F Ring system with higher interaction in the lateral joints (kv=500000N/mm, called 5kv) and
non-linear rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints (stage I to III).
From these calculations the influence of the non-linear behaviour of the longitudinal joints
becomes clear, in different systems of ring interaction. The rings are embedded in the soil
continuum.
Figure 23 shows the maximum tangential bending moments as a function of the increasing
ovalisation loading 2 for the varying lining configurations A to F. The lines C to F are
calculated with the rotational stiffness in the stages I to III (linear to concrete plastic stresses in
the longitudinal joints). The lines A and B only involve stage I. For the lines A, B and D to F the
exit condition of the calculation is Mu (the assumed ultimate bending moment acceptable in the
concrete segment). For line B the exit condition is the exceedance of the ultimate concrete strain
in a longitudinal joint (=3.5*10-3).
Although Figure 23 and Figure 24 look very complicated, they tell much about the dependencies
of the rotational stiffness and the coupling stiffness.

400
5kv
F
Bending Moment [kN m/0.75m]
350
300
1kv
B: 1kv Stage I
Mu
E
F
C
D
A
B
E
D
250
0.5kv
0kv Stage I
200
150
bu
100
47
M max kv
M max 5kv
M max 0kv
M max 0.5kv
M max 0kv LV=I
M max 1kv LV=I
0kv
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
O valisation loading (%)
Figure 23. The maximum tangential bending moments (Given N) as function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Maximum ovalisation (radial

deformation) [mm]
25
0kv
0kv Stage I
20
15
E
F
C
D
A
B
B: 1kv Stage I
E
10
F 5kv
5
umax kv
umax 5kv
umax 0kv
umax 0.5kv
umax 0kv LV=I
umax 1kv LV=I
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 24. Deformations of rings (Given N) as function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Line A is a system without changing any system stiffness: no reduction of the rotational stiffness
in the longitudinal joints (only stage I). The soil always supports the system with the same
percentage of loading (2 = 74% and constant while 2 increases). The tangential bending
moments and the deformations increase as a linear function of the increasing ovalisation load 2.
The implementation of the reducing rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints (stage I to III)
results in line C. The system stiffness of the rings decreases with the increasing ovalisation
loading 2 (2=74% ending at 2=96%). If the ovalisation loading 2 is more than 50% almost
all loading (96%) is taken by the soil support. The deformations increase more than linear if the
ovalisation loading 2 increases. The increase of the tangential bending moments finally is
almost zero, because the system stiffness of the rings has reduced enormously.
The implementation of the coupling stiffness (kv=100000N/mm) without the reducing rotational
stiffness in the longitudinal joints (only stage I) results in line B. The system stiffness of the
physically coupled rings is constant during the increase of the ovalisation loading 2. The soil
48
supports the lining system for 2=71%. Compared to line A the system stiffness of the rings is
higher. The tangential bending moments and deformations are linearly increasing. But the
tangential bending moments increase more compared to line A while the deformations increase
less compared to line A. Both progressions are directly explainable by the higher system
stiffness.
Bending Moment by C oupling Force[%]
Next, the reducing rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints and the coupling stiffness (kv)
are implemented. This configuration results in line E. While the ovalisation loading 2 increases,
the stiffness of the rings decreases, so the soil support increases (2=71% ending at 2=72%).
Compared to line C the reduction of the system stiffness is much less, almost constant. Initially
the system stiffness is equally to line B. It is expected that the development of bending moments
and deformations are near to the development according to line B because the system stiffness is
very close to line B. But finally the system stiffness decreases by 1%. The tangential bending
moments are somewhat smaller than according to line B and the deformations are somewhat
higher than according to line B. Figure 23 and Figure 24 show these dependencies. For the lines
D and F a similar analysis can be made.
50
45
5kv
40
F
E
35
%M p/M 2 kv
15
E
F
C
D
A
10
%M p/M 2 1kv LV=I
30
25
20
A, C
0
0
10
20
30
%M p/M 2 5kv
%M p/M 2 0kv
%M p/M 2 0.5kv
%M p/M 2 0kv LV=I
0kv
40
50
60
O valisation loading(%)
Figure 25. The tangential bending moments. Influence of the coupling forces as function of the ovalisation loading
(% of 0).
In chapter 4 the influence of the coupling forces on the tangential bending moments was made
explicit. Figure 25 shows the percentage of the tangential bending moments due to the coupling
forces compared to the total tangential bending moments. It is obvious that a higher coupling
stiffness results in higher percentages of the tangential bending moments caused by the coupling.
The lines D and E also show an increasing influence. This is explained by the decrease of the
rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints. The coupling stiffness increases relatively. Figure
25 also shows that if the couplings are applied in the lining, 20 to 45% of the total tangential
bending moments are caused by the couplings. The tangential bending moments calculated with
just one ring have to be multiplied with a factor 1.3 to 1.8 to have equal tangential bending
moments derived from a coupled system (on condition of equal factors for the single and
coupled ring systems). This factor increases to 3 when the factor is determined without
consideration of the coupling stiffness (e.g. compare bending moments from line C and F in
Figure 23)
49
200000
Coupling Force [N ]
180000
160000
140000
E
F
Mmax kv
Mmax 0kv
60000
C
D
A
40000
Mmax 1kv LV=I
5kv
120000
100000
80000
20000
0
10
20
30
Mmax 0.5kv
Mmax 0kv LV=I
0kv
A, C
Mmax 5kv
40
50
60
Figure 26. The coupling forces as function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Figure 26 shows the development of the coupling forces as a function of the increasing
ovalisation loading 2. Of course the coupling force is zero (lines A and C) when there is no
coupling stiffness. The development of the coupling forces is linear with the increasing
ovalisation loading 2 when the rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints is constant. The
introduction of the reducing rotational stiffness for the longitudinal joints may result in a more
than linear increase of the coupling forces (lines D and E). Line F shows the system where
rotational stiffness remains constant because the internal rotations are within stage I.
3
Joint opening [mm]
2.5
E
F
C
D
A
B
A
1.5
E
1
0.5
M ax Ujoint kv
M ax Ujoint 5kv
M ax Ujoint 0kv
M ax Ujoint 0.5kv
M ax Ujoint 0kv LV=I
M ax Ujoint 1kv LV=I
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 27. Joint opening outside ring as function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Figure 27 shows the opening at the outside of the rings of the longitudinal joint due to rotation
in the longitudinal joints. The comparison of the lines C to A (C involves the reduced rotational
stiffness in the longitudinal joints) shows that the involvement of the reduction of the rotational
stiffness results in a smaller joint opening. This is because of the redistribution of internal
forces. The next longitudinal joints are relatively stiff if the rotational stiffness of a longitudinal
joint reduces. This results in the attraction of larger tangential bending moments, which again
results in a reduction of the rotational stiffness. The implementation of the coupling stiffness
results in a stiffer system (line B) with a smaller joint opening. The reduction of the rotational
50
stiffness flattens with the increase of the coupling stiffness. As a consequence the joint opening
is reduced. A low coupling stiffness in combination with a reducing rotational stiffness results in
pushing open the longitudinal joints (line D). The increase of the rotations in the longitudinal
joints is limited when the coupling stiffness increases (lines E and F).
5.4
Conclusions on non-linear longitudinal joint behaviour
In a single ring configuration the deformations of the ring are influenced by the non-linear
behaviour because the ring has a lower bending stiffness. The ring interaction might diminish
the decrease of the systems bending stiffness. Still the value of the coupling stiffness has a
minor influence on the deformation itself. This conclusion results in the opinion that the global
deformation of a lining can be analysed by a single ring (see also the later paragraph 5.7).
The internal forces (the tangential bending moments and the coupling forces) and the rotations
of the longitudinal joints are very much depending on the coupling stiffness. The non-linearity in
the longitudinal joints is of minor influence on the tangential bending moments if the rings are
coupled. The influence of the reducing rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joint is also
dominant when there is no lateral joint interaction between rings. In general the maximum
tangential bending moments in a single ring configuration are much smaller than the maximum
tangential bending moments in a coupled system. If the single ring is calculated with the
constant rotational stiffness, then the maximum tangential bending moments in a coupled system
can be over 200% compared to the constant single ring results (compare bending moments from
line A and F in Figure 23). If the single ring is calculated with reducing longitudinal joints, then
the maximum tangential bending moments in a coupled system can be over 300% compared to
the results of the single ring (compare bending moments from line C and F in Figure 23).
In a single ring coupling forces do not occur. In a coupled system there are coupling forces
dominated by the coupling stiffness. The reducing rotational stiffness results in higher coupling
forces. In the analyses made, the coupling force increases over 30% due to the reduction of the
rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints.
The joint opening is in general positively influenced by the reduction of the rotational stiffness
in the longitudinal joints because of the redistribution of internal forces. The local coupling
forces in first instance have a negative influence on the joint opening. But the influence on the
joint opening is positive when the coupling stiffness increases.
5.5
Introduction of non-linear behaviour for bending moments
In chapter 4 the basic assumption is made in the analytical formulations that the tangential
bending moments can be described by the equation:
1
(43)
M = 2 r 2 b cos(2 )
3
This equation is actually valid for an equally distributed stiffness around the lining
circumference. Still it is used in the system to approach the lining behaviour when the
longitudinal rotational stiffness starts to vary along the circumference of the lining. This
paragraph compares the calculations based on equation (43) and the calculations made with a
frame analysis (called LDesign). A comparison is made for the example situation of the BRT
including the soil stiffness of 38Mpa. In the frame analysis the tunnel is modelled with 7
51
segments. Between the segments rotation springs are applied with stage I and II behaviour as
described in 5.1. Each segment consists of four linear beams. The soil is implemented as radial
linear springs. In case of the double ring analysis, the second ring is rotated over half a
segmental length. The lateral ring interaction is taken into account by linear springs (stiffness kv)
at the positions of the longitudinal joints.
25
200
Bending moment [kNm]
Radial deformation [mm]
5.5.1 Single ring with bending stiffness and longitudinal joints

This paragraph compares the results of an analytical single ring analysis with non-linear
rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints (line A in 5.3) and a frame analysis (called
LDesign).
20
15
10
5
LDesign
Analytical solution
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Ovalisation loading [%]
150
100
50
LDesign
Analytical solution
0
60
Figure 28. The radial deformations compared for the

analytical solution and the frame analysis, as a function
of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 29. The maximum tangential bending moment

for half a ring width compared for the analytical
solution and the frame analysis, as a function of the
ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Figure 28 shows the radial deformation of the single ring according to the analytical solution
with the reducing rotational stiffness and the results of the frame analysis. In the analytical
solution it is assumed that the tangential bending moments are determined by the equation (43).
In Figure 29 the discrepancy is shown due to this assumption. In the analytical solution the
maximum bending moment is determined in the top of the ring. In the frame analyses due to
stiffness reduction the maximum tangential bending moment does not necessarily appear in the
top of the ring. In this case the values finally differ by 20%. Special attention is given to the
branch until 15% ovalisation loading. The longitudinal joints behave in a linear way (stage I) in
all longitudinal joints and the tangential bending moments agree exactly.
Joint opening [mm]
3
LDesign
Analytical Solution
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 30. The maximum outside joint opening compared for the single ring in the analytical solution and the frame
analysis, as function a of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
52
Despite the basic assumption of the tangential bending moments and the discrepancy as shown
in Figure 29, the radial deformations in the single ring analysis agree very well with the results
of the frame analysis (Figure 28). Figure 30 shows the longitudinal joint opening at the outside
of the ring. In this case the maximum outside joint opening appears on the side of the ring. In the
analytical solution the tangential bending moments are not redistributed. This results in smaller
opening of the outside of the joint.
25
Radial Deformation [mm]
5.5.2 Coupled ring system

This paragraph shows the discrepancies between a coupled ring system in the analytical
solutions with the results of the frame analysis. Both systems are embedded in the soil with
linear support reaction with Es=38MPa. For the coupling stiffness a distinction is made between
a normal stiffness of kv=100.000N/mm (1kv, line E in 5.3) and a higher stiffness of
500000N/mm (5kv, line F in 5.3).
20
15
10
LDesign
Analytical solution
25
20
15
10
LDesign
Analyical Solution
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
Ovalisation loading [%] High stiffness
60
Figure 31. Deformations of the coupled ring system compared for the analytical solution and the results of the frame
analysis, as a function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0). Left is the figure for the normal coupling stiffness (1kv).
Right is the figure for the higher coupling stiffness (5kv).
600
Bending Moment [kNm]
Bending moment [kNm]
600
500
400
300
200
LDesgin
Analytical solution
100
0
500
400
300
200
LDesign
Analytical System
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 32. The maximum tangential bending moment for a half ring width for the coupled system compared for the
analytical solution with the results of the frame analysis, as a function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Figure 31 shows the maximum radial deformation of the coupled system. Figure 32 shows the
maximum tangential bending moments. In contrast to the single ring system the tangential
bending moments are in the coupled system higher in the analytical solution compared to the
results of the frame analysis. In the coupled system the calculated tangential bending moments
are on the safe side of the value. From the deformations it is clear that the redistribution of the
tangential bending moments in the frame analysis results in a smaller tangential bending
stiffness of the coupled system. As a consequence the internal maximum tangential bending
53
moments are higher. It is obvious that Figure 31 and Figure 32 show a nearly linear relation
between the increasing ovalisation loading and the maximum radial deformations and the
tangential bending moments. Especially the results of the frame analysis are linearly related to
the ovalisation.
4.E+05
4.E+05
LDesign
Analytical Solution
2.E+05
2.E+05
1.E+05
1.E+05
0.E+00
0.E+00
0
10
LDesign
Analytical Solution
3.E+05
Force [N]
Force [N]
3.E+05
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 33. The maximum coupling force compared for the analytical solution of coupled rings with the frame
analysis, as a function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
Figure 33 shows the maximum coupling forces in the coupled system as a function of the
ovalisation loading. The coupling forces show a good agreement between the analytical solution
and the results of the frame analysis. For both normal and high stiffness systems the analytical
solution results in a bit higher values. Again this is the result of a slightly smaller support by the
soil. As stated before the internal forces are higher in the analytical solution of the coupled
system. The values for the coupling forces are again a safe approach compared to the frame
analysis.
Figure 34 shows the maximum outside joint opening for the longitudinal joints as a function of
the increasing ovalisation loading. The analytical solution overestimates the outside joint
opening for the normal coupling stiffness (1kv). The high coupling stiffness does not show an
overestimation. In the coupled system the tangential bending moments are highly influenced by
coupling forces. That the comparison for high stiffness agrees better, seems to be a coincidence.
It is noticed that in practice the ovalisation loading is very often in the range up to 10-20% of the
uniform compression.
3
LDesign
Analytical solution
Joint Opening [mm]
Joint opening [mm]
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
LDesign
Analytical Solution
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 34. The maximum outside joint opening for coupled rings compared for the analytical solution with the
frame analysis, as a function of the ovalisation loading (% of 0).
54
5.5.3 Conclusions on the analytical solution related to the reducing tangential bending moments
The analytical solutions of the single ring with the reducing rotational stiffness and the coupled
system are based on the basic assumption that the tangential bending moments are known by
equation (43). As stated this equation is actually valid for a ring with equally distributed bending
stiffness. Still this equation is used in the situation where locally the rotational stiffness of the
longitudinal joints might drop and the bending stiffness of the ring is not continuous anymore.
The analyses in 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 show the difference between the analytical solutions based on
equation (43) and the results of the frame analyses where the distribution of the tangential
bending moments is internally arranged. Both systems are calculated with non-linear
longitudinal joint behaviour (rotational stiffness).
The basic assumption of equation (43) in a single ring situation results in an underestimation of
the tangential bending moments and longitudinal joint opening. The radial deformations are
predicted very well. The underestimation of the tangential bending moments is at maximum
about 20% in the example cases.
The basic assumption of equation (43) in a coupled ring situation results in an overestimation of
the tangential bending moments and longitudinal joint opening. The radial deformations are
predicted very well.
It is stated that the discrepancies increase when the ovalisation loading increases. Still the
analytical solutions provide a very good insight into the lining behaviour. In combination with
linear longitudinal joint behaviour the results are very accurate. If ovalisation increases, the
accuracy decreases, but the solutions of the coupled system are upper bounds for lining design.
5.6
Comparing the analytical solutions with theories from literature
From literature [10] some analytical solutions of single rings are known. This paragraph shows a
comparison between these solutions and the analytical solutions from chapter 4. Figure 35
shows the well-known design diagram of Duddeck [10]. On the horizontal axis the stiffness
factor is given. This is a relation between the stiffness of the lining and the soil. On the vertical
axis a factor (m) is given from which the tangential bending moments can be calculated
(Mmax=mvr2).
From the literature relations are given of the Schulze Duddeck solutions and from a model of
Erdman [10]. The relation of Erdman is actually meant to be used in a full bond situation. This
means that the total tangential component of the soil loading is acting on the lining (see chapter
6). The relation of Erdman is used with a forced exclusion of the tangential force. As mentioned
in [10] this relation should actually not be used in a tangential slip analysis. The model of
Schulze Duddeck is a bedded beam solution, including the relation kr=Es/2r, in this case with
full tangential slip. The comparison is made with the analytical solution in chapter 4, where the
same soil support relation is now implemented.
55
0.16
2
M m ax = m ' v r
Schulze - Duddeck diagram full slip
0.14
v = effective vertical soil stress

at the centre line of the tunnel
continuum model uit Erdman

tangential=0
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.1
10
stiffnessf actor =
100
m [-]
0.1
Blom single ring homogeneous

(k=E/2r)
Blom coupled ring kv = 0,
lt=170, Es=50M Pa
Blom coupled ring kv = 1e5,
lt=170, Es=50M Pa
Blom coupled ring kv = infin,
lt=10, Es=50M Pa
1000
12 E s r
[/ m]
E c bd 3
Blom coupled ring kv = 0,

lt=10, Es=50M Pa
Figure 35. Comparison for the maximum tangential bending moments for the analytical solution and solutions from
literature [10]. The parameter lt is the contact area in the longitudinal joint (see 5.1).
The observed application bandwidth is obtained from:

10MPa < Es < 150MPa
r = 4525mm
10000MPa<Ec<60000MPa
b=750mm
d=400mm
The lower bound stiffness factor on the horizontal axis of Figure 35 is 3.5. The upper bound
stiffness factor on the horizontal axis of Figure 35 is 350. Outside these boundaries a
comparison should not be made for these models.
The first comparison concerns the analytical solution for a single homogeneous ring. It is
assumed that the ring does not include longitudinal joints and ring interaction between adjoining
rings. It is observed that the agreement with the solution of Schulze Duddeck is very good.
The new analytical solution gives the solution for a ring with longitudinal joints as well. For this
comparison the geometry of the BRT is used. Therefore a longitudinal joint contact thickness of
lt=170mm is used. The longitudinal joint rotations are assumed to be in stage I. From previous
analysis it is expected that the lining itself is acting less stiff. As a consequence the tangential
bending moments decrease compared to the homogeneous situation. This is well observed in the
graph.
A next step concerns the involvement of the lateral ring interaction by the couplings. The results
of the analytical solution are given for the situation of the BRT, with a coupling stiffness
kv=1.105N/mm.
56
N max = n v r
Literature
0.9
Blom
0.8
*1
0.7
0.5
n [-]
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
stiffnessf actor =
10
Es r
[/ m]
E c bd
Figure 36. Comparison for the maximum tangential normal force in the ring for the analytical solution and solutions
from literature [10].
It is expected that the tangential bending moments increase compared to the situation with
longitudinal joints, because of the coupling forces. From the graph it is clear that the tangential
bending moments do increase as a consequence of the coupling forces.
An upper bound situation for the tangential bending moments is that the longitudinal joints are
assumed to be hinges and that the coupling stiffness is infinitely high. From the graph it is clear
that the tangential bending moments strongly increase in this situation. The absolute lower
bound situation is a ring system without ring interaction, hinges as longitudinal joints and very
low bending stiffness of the concrete. The very low tangential bending moments are also
observed in the diagram. It is obvious that the solutions from literature are implemented for
homogeneous rings. The influence of ring interaction can easily result in higher tangential
bending moments. The analytical solutions in chapter 4 provide the solutions including the
longitudinal joints and the lateral joint interaction.
Figure 36 shows the well-known design diagram of Duddeck [10] for the maximum tangential
normal forces. On the horizontal axis the stiffness factor is given. This is a relation between the
stiffness of the lining and the soil. On the vertical axis a factor is given on which the tangential
normal forces can be calculated.
The observed application bandwidth is obtained from:
10MPa < Es < 150MPa.
r = 4525mm.
10000MPa<Ec<60000MPa.
b=750mm.
d=400mm.
57
The lower bound stiffness factor on the horizontal axis of Figure 36 is 0.0025. The upper bound
stiffness factor on the horizontal axis of Figure 36 is 0.22. Outside these boundaries a
comparison should not be made for these models.
In the figure it is clear that the values from literature agree with the solutions in chapter 4. On
the left side of the graph (lower stiffness factors) there is a slight discrepancy between the values
from theory and the analytical solution in chapter 4. It is obvious in the literature that many
models show different values in this area of the graph. For the situation where the tunnel has a
large overburden the models agree in general. Especially in more shallow situations the results
show discrepancies. In the literature it is found that in this situation, especially when the lining is
shallow situated, the maximum normal force is reduced (in the literature the Schulze/Duddeck
model gives a maximum of about n=0.7 at the vertical axis for an overburden of three times the
diameter (see *1 in Figure 36 and [10])).
5.7
The equivalent bending stiffness of homogeneous rings to predict deformations
In many analyses there may be much interest in the macro deformations of the lining, like
geotechnical calculations for settlements etc. These analyses are not capable or not suitable to
explicitly implement the longitudinal joints and couplings of the lining. These analyses very
often use the homogeneous ring with a reduced bending stiffness to involve the global influence
of the longitudinal joints on the bending stiffness. The described analytical solution of the lining
with bending stiffness and the longitudinal joints in chapter 4 provides a direct closed solution
for the reduction that has to be applied on the real bending stiffness of the segments [2].
The reduction factor (EIeq= .EIfull,hom) that is applied to the bending stiffness of a full
homogeneous ring to take into account the global influence of the longitudinal joints [2] is:
1
=
(44)
3
3d
1 + 2 (C x* + C y* )
4 lt r
With:
i <+
C x* =
cos(2 ) cos( ) and C
< i
2
*
y
i < +
cos(2 ) sin ( )
0< i
Figure 37 shows the results of the equation for the reduction factor , in general for several
numbers of segments in a ring. The reduction factor is actually only valid in a single ring
consideration with the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints in stage I (closed joints). In
5.5.1 it has turned out that the analytical solution describes the deformation of the single ring
with (non-linear) longitudinal joints very well. Lateral ring joint interaction might increase the
reduction factor (depending on the position and stiffness of the couplings). Figure 24 shows
that the influence of the coupling on the deformations is actually of minor influence. The
increase of the reduction factor should be just a bit due to the lateral interaction.
58
1
0.9
5
6 7
0.8
8 9
0.7
Number of segments
10
Reduction factor
0.6
20
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
lt2 r
d3
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 37. The reduction factor for the bending stiffness as function of the contact area in the longitudinal joint,
the segmental thickness and the radius, for several numbers of segments of a single ring.
Example:
For the BRT the number of segments in a ring is 7. The contact area in the longitudinal joint (lt)
is 170mm, the radius (r) is 4525mm and the segmental thickness (d) is 400mm. The value to be
read on the horizontal axis is:
l t2 r 170 2 * 4525
=
= 2.04
400 3
d3
The line for 7 segments in Figure 37 shows that the reduction factor is 0.64. This means that
the analyses with the homogeneous ring should be carried out with a reduced bending stiffness
of 64% of the full homogeneous ring to involve the influence of the longitudinal joints in the
deformations.
For the GHT the number of segments in a ring is assumed to be 9. The contact area in the
longitudinal joint (lt) is 400mm, the radius (r) is 6950mm, the segmental thickness (d) is
600mm. The value to be read on the horizontal axis is:
l t2 r 400 2 * 6950
=
= 5.15
600 3
d3
The line for 9 segments in Figure 37 shows that the reduction factor is 0.78.
5.8
Conclusions from the background document
The analytical theory in chapter 4 is supported by the background document [2]. In this
document some general, very important conclusions are set, based on the many given examples.
Some of those conclusions are reminded here.
59
It has turned out that the system bending stiffness of the lining without soil is highly depending
on the segmental bending stiffness and the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints. The
stiffening by the ring interaction (couplings in the lateral joints in combination with the masonry
layout of the segments of adjoining rings) is noticeable in the deformations.
Nevertheless it is not possible to use homogeneous rings in models when adjoining rings have
lateral couplings and the masonry layout. Using the models with homogeneous rings with
reduced bending stiffness (to compensate for longitudinal joints and ring interaction) might
result in a good approach for the deformations. Still the predicted internal forces, like tangential
bending moments, show a large discrepancy with the real acting internal forces. The average
values of the tangential bending moments might agree, but coupling forces disturb the
distribution of the tangential bending moments. This disturbance results in high local stress
spots.
The influence of the lateral couplings is less noticeable if the system is in soil (it is said that in
the examples the deformations are limited and that the conclusion is valid for the chosen
coupling stiffness. When the deformations increase, then the influence of the couplings will
increase). Using the homogeneous ring with a reduced bending stiffness might result in a good
prediction of the radial deformations. Again the predicted internal forces (like the tangential
bending moments) will not agree with the real acting tangential bending moments. The average
values do agree but local disturbance by the coupling forces again results in large discrepancies.
Extract of conclusions
With a single ring model in soil:
The general deformations can be predicted well.
The average values of the internal forces are predicted well (valid integrally over adjoining
rings).
The maximum and minimum values of the internal forces are predicted poorly.
The lateral interaction between adjoining rings is slightly increasing the systems bending
stiffness and has a major influence on the local internal forces. This effect is neglected if
just a single ring is modelled.
These conclusions result in the opinion that the lining of the tunnel can be modelled by a single
ring model with or without explicit formulation of the longitudinal joints. Explicit
implementation of the longitudinal joints provides information about the water tightness of the
longitudinal joints in a ring. The predicted internal forces in the ring are valid if considered as
average values over adjoining rings, what is important to predict the Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
of the lining. The local maximum and minimum values are very much influenced by the lateral
ring interaction. Since these couplings are not included, the local maximum and minimum
values are not predicted, what is important to predict for example cracks that influence the
quality of the lining.
5.9
Conclusions
The analysis of the longitudinal joints shows that the relation between the occurring rotation and
the tangential bending moment is separated into three stages. The first stage (stage I) results in a
constant rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints. The relation between the rotation and the
tangential bending moment is linear. With increasing rotation in the joint the contact area at a
60
time is reduced. As a consequence there is a non-linear relation between the rotation and the
tangential bending moment. The rotational stiffness is varying with the occurring rotation (stage
II). Finally the elastic strain capacity of the concrete is reached. The ultimate occurring strains
are plastic strains of the concrete. The relation between the rotation and the occurring tangential
bending moment is non-linear (stage III).
The analysis shows that the structural analysis of the lining should involve stage I and II. If the
stresses are calculated in the longitudinal joint the consideration of stage III should be involved,
otherwise the predicted occurring stresses will be far too high.
This chapter shows that non-linear behaviour in the longitudinal joints can be implemented in
the analytical solutions of chapter 4.
The deformations of a ring are predicted very accurately if the non-linearity of the longitudinal
joints is implemented in the single ring analysis. Nevertheless the tangential bending moments
are underestimated.
The deformations of the system are slightly underestimated if non-linearity of the longitudinal
joints is used in a coupled ring system. As a consequence the reduction factor 2 reduces the
initial loading to a lower value. Therefore the predicted tangential bending moments are
overestimated, but on the safe side in the design. So are the coupling forces and the joint
opening. The analytical solution gives good tendencies compared with the frame analyses.
The comparison of the analytical solutions of chapter 4 with well-known solutions from
literature shows a good agreement. Since solutions in literature are not presented for single rings
with explicit longitudinal joints and coupled systems ever, such a comparison can not be made.
However the direct comparison for the single homogeneous ring is made and agrees very well.
The implementation of the explicit longitudinal joints and the lateral coupling shows the
influence of these geometrical parts of the lining.
The analytical solution of the single rings with explicit longitudinal joints is finally applied to
predict the reduction of the bending stiffness in the homogeneous ring solutions.
One has to remind that predicted forces and deformations are based on the so-called beam
analysis. This means that force distribution over the segmental width is assumed to be the
average value over the segmental width. It will turn out that the distribution (especially
important in crack analysis) of the stresses is not equally distributed over the segmental width.
61
Segmented lining models in soil: general loading components and

consideration of the ULS
The previous chapters deal with the simulation of the segmented lining behaviour by an
engineering model. The lining is loaded by initial forces from the surroundings and supported by
the soil. There are several ways to formulate the loading components on the lining. This chapter
gives some approaches for these formulations. A distinction is made for loading in the
serviceability stage (the so-called normal load cases) and loading during the assembly of the
lining due to pressures from the injected material along the circumference of the lining (the socalled uplift loading case). All loading is dissolved in radial and tangential components.
The different approaches with regard to the loading in the serviceability stage are compared with
each other. Also some considerations are given about which component of the loading is
applied.
The internal forces and deformations are predicted with the structural models. The question is
very often what the actual Ultimate Limit State (ULS) is for the lining. This chapter provides
considerations on this topic, including the type of analysis that is applied. As it will be shown
the lining interaction with the soil leads to a special approach for the ULS. A linear elastic
analysis and an analysis accounting for geometrical and physical non-linear behaviour support
the considerations. Mechanisms like local buckling and snap through are included.
6.1
The normal load cases: loading from the soil
6.1.1 General
In Figure 38 the case of a tunnel surrounded by soil is considered. Assuming that the vertical
soil pressure has to be calculated at a certain depth, the vertical pressure is calculated by the
weight of the soil overburden above this level. At the same depth there is water pressure. The
effective vertical soil pressure is calculated by subtracting the water pressure from the vertical
soil pressure. The local horizontal effective soil pressure is calculated by multiplication of the
effective vertical soil pressure with the horizontal soil coefficient. The total horizontal soil
pressure is the sum of the effective horizontal soil pressure and the water pressure.
The vertical and the horizontal soil pressure can be transformed into the radial and the tangential
stress-loading components. To activate the tangential loading component there must be a
possibility to mobilise tangential friction between the soil and the lining. In several lining
designs there has been an interesting discussion whether or not tangential loading occurs. The
occurrence is expected to depend on all factors of soil properties, grout body properties and the
interfaces between concrete and grout and grout and soil. Involving all tangential loading (in
combination with the tangential soil reaction) could result in unrealistic lining dimensions. Even
some existing linings would collapse due to this loading system. Some lining designs only
involve a percentage of the full tangential loading (Botlek Railway Tunnel: 25%). In 6.6 some
considerations are given whether or not to apply the tangential component of the loading. The
loading is mainly presented in radial components due to these considerations.
62
The structural models require a definition of the loading in order to predict the internal forces
and the deformations of the lining. In the following paragraphs three approaches are presented.
The first approach makes use of a reduced vertical pressure on the lower half of the lining, the
second approach assumes a constant vertical pressure but an increasing water pressure in
relation to the depth and the third approach omits the floating due to water pressure.
sd
hd
hd* sw
w
hs
sw
hw
v=hd* sw+hw*sw
r
h
w=hw*w
h=(v-w)*K0+w
Reduced vertical soil pressure

water pressure
horizontal soil pressure influenced

by reduced vertical soil pressure
Figure 38. Soil pressures as loading on a ring of the lining.
6.1.2 Transformations of loading to the radial and tangential component

v
b=cos()*1
Fv=cos()*v
rh=sin2()*h
rv=cos2()*v
l=1
l=1
h
b=sin()*1
Fh=sin()*h
Figure 39. Transformations of the vertical and horizontal loading to the radial and tangential component.
The soil pressure is mostly expressed in the vertical and horizontal components. The input in the
structural analysis of the ring is mostly expressed in a radial and a tangential component. Figure
39 shows the translations of the vertical (left in the figure) and horizontal (right in the figure)
component.
The total radial component is:
r , = v , cos 2 ( ) + h, sin 2 ( )
63
The total tangential component is:

t , = v , sin 2 ( ) + h, cos 2 ( )
6.1.3 Approach 1: Reduction of the vertical soil pressure
In this approach it is assumed that the vertical soil pressure can be directly calculated from the
weight above the assumed level. This assumption involves a complication when the loading has
to be calculated in the area 90<<270 (lower half of the lining). The vertical soil pressure now
also has to take into account the weight of the tunnel, but within the tunnel there is no soil.
Mostly it is assumed that the dead weight of the concrete lining itself is of minor influence and
can be taken equal to zero. The development of the vertical soil pressure is reduced at the lower
half of the ring (Figure 38). The water pressure at the lower half is not reduced. As a
consequence also the horizontal soil pressure is influenced by the reduction of the vertical soil
pressure.
When analysing the vertical soil pressure it is obvious that there is symmetry of the loading
around the horizontal axis of the ring. The horizontal soil pressure does not show the symmetry
around the horizontal axis.
6.1.4 Approach 2: Equal vertical effective soil pressure
The next approach in defining the load is based on equal effective vertical soil pressure. It is
assumed that the effective vertical soil pressure around the ring is equal to the initial effective
vertical soil pressure at the side of the tunnel. Therefore the effective horizontal loading is
constant around the lining. The water pressure increases with the depth. In this load system there
is a floating component.
The vertical effective soil pressure at the side of the ring is the weight of the overburden of the
soil to the side of the lining, the water pressure being subtracted, at the side of the tunnel. This
effective vertical soil pressure is now assumed to be valid around the entire ring.
The effective horizontal soil pressure is the effective vertical soil pressure multiplied with the
active horizontal soil coefficient: hceff=K0*vceff. As a function of the angle the total
horizontal and vertical pressure is calculated, adding the local water pressure:
Vertical soil pressure: v=vceff+w()
Horizontal soil pressure: h=K0*vceff+ w()
where
v = vertical soil pressure
v,eff = effective vertical soil pressure
w = water pressure
h = horizontal soil pressure
K0 = neutral soil coefficient
The horizontal and vertical components can now be decomposed into radial and tangential
components. The result for the radial pressure is shown in Figure 40.
Radial component:
r()=vceff*cos2+vceff*K0*sin2+w()
64
r()=vceff*(0.5(1+K0)+0.5(1-K0)cos(2))+ w()
where
r
= radial stress
This equation is often formulated as:
r()=vceff*(C1+C2*cos(2))+ w()
C1=(1+K0)/2
C2=(1-K0)/2
In a very similar way the tangential component can be determined as:
t()=vceff*(-C2*sin(2))
where
t
= tangential stress
0
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
270
0.000
90
Vertical distance to centre line of ring

[m]
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
180
Radial soil pressure
Radial effective soil
Pressure [MPa]
Radial effective soil pressure
Water pressure
Radial soil pressure - floating omitted
Figure 40. Radial load distribution of the acting soil.
6.1.5 Approach 3: Transformation to omit the floating component

Often the analytical formulations omit the floating component of the soil loading giving a load
system with pressure equilibrium in the vertical and the horizontal direction. The question is
what influence the omission of floating has on the internal stress distribution and the
deformations of the lining.
To illustrate the influence of floating on the internal forces and deformations of the lining it is
assumed that a ring is loaded only by water pressure and the ring is uniformly supported by an
elastic soil continuum. Only radial loading will act due to the water pressure. Next it is assumed
that the soil support is only active in radial direction. From this point of view the floating
component of the water pressure will only result in a translation of the lining in the supporting
65
medium. It is stated that the floating component due to water pressure does not result in bending
moments and ovalisation of the ring (Figure 41 shows the results of a frame analysis of this load
case).
Figure 41. Translation and compression due to water pressure only in a continuous soil support. Ovalisation due to
bending does not appear.
In the analytical solutions floating is also omitted. The question is what values for active loading
should be used in the calculations.
Due to floating the ring shifts upwards. The soil support at the upper part of the ring will
increase (total pressure increases) while the soil support at the lower half of the ring will
decrease (total pressure decreases). Finally the ring translation holds when the upward directed
loading is equal to the downward directed loading. The absolute vertical loading at the top and
the bottom of the ring will then be equal to the vertical soil pressure at the centre of the ring:
top=bottom=vc
The horizontal loading at the side of the ring is not influenced by the vertical translation of the
ring.
side=vceff*K0+wc
From the top and the side pressure the uniform and ovalising radial pressure is calculated.
The uniform pressure is: 0=(top+side)/2
The ovalisation pressure is: 2=(top-side)/2
(1 is called the floating pressure component and is omitted here)
The radial pressure around the ring is calculated with:
()=0+2cos(2)
In Figure 40 the pressure without floating is given. It is obvious that the loading is symmetrical
around the horizontal axis. It is also clear that the line representing the radial loading without
floating, has the same shape as the effective radial soil pressure. The radial soil pressure can also
be derived from the effective radial soil pressure increased with a constant water pressure at the
centre of the ring.
66
It turns out that this approximation results in nearly the same results for the internal forces and
the radial deformations excluding the vertical translation, for approach two and this load system
without floating (see also the next paragraph).
6.2
Example comparing the load cases
The geometry and the soil conditions of the BRT are given in Figure 42. In this paragraph a
comparison is made for a coupled ring system in soil loaded by the three previous described
loading approaches.
hd
sd
hw
sw
Parameter
External radius: r
Lining thickness: d
Height saturated soil: hw
Height unsaturated soil: hd
sw
sd
w
Youngs modulus concrete Ec
Elasticity soil: Es
Horizontal soil coefficient K0
Value
4725mm
400m
22700mm
2300mm
18.10-6N/mm3
16.10-6N/mm3
10.10-6N/mm3
40000MPa
38MPa
0.43
Figure 42. Situation and geometrical data of the example.
The vertical soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:

vc=22700*18.10-6+2300*16.10-6=0.445MPa
The water pressure at the centre of the ring is:
wc=22700*10.10-6=0.227MPa
The effective vertical soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
vceff=0.445-0.227=0.218MPa
The effective horizontal soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
hceff=0.218*0.43=0.0937MPa
The horizontal soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
hc=0.0937+0.227=0.321MPa
6.2.1 Determination of the radial loading
Approach 1:
The vertical soil pressure at the top and bottom of the ring is:
vtop,bottom=(22700-4725)*18.10-6+2300*16.10-6=0.360MPa
The horizontal soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
hc=0.321MPa
Approach 2:
The effective vertical soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
67
C1=(1+K0)/2=(1+0.43)/2=0.715
C2=(1-K0)/2=(1-0.43)/2=0.285
vceff=0.218MPa
The water pressure at the top of the ring is:
w(0)=(22700-4725)*10.10-6=0.180MPa
The vertical soil pressure at the top of the ring is:
r(0)=vceff*(C1+C2*cos(2*0))+w(0)=0.218+0.180=0.398MPa
The water pressure at the bottom of the ring is:
w(0)=(22700+4725)*10.10-6=0.274MPa
The vertical soil pressure at the bottom of the ring is:
r(180 )=vceff*(C1+C2*cos(2*180))+w(180)=0.218+0.274=0.492MPa
The water pressure at the centre of the ring is w(90)=0.227MPa
The radial soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
r(90 )=vceff*(C1+C2*cos(2*90))+w(180)=0.218*0.43+0.227=0.321MPa
Approach 3:
The vertical soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
vc=22700*18.10-6+2300*16.10-6=0.445MPa
The radial soil pressure at the top and bottom of the ring is:
rtop,bottom=vc=0.445MPa
The water pressure at the centre of the ring is wc=0.227MPa
The radial soil pressure at the centre of the ring is:
rc=(0.445-0.227)*0.43+0.227=0.321MPa
0=(0.445+0.321)/2=0.383MPa
2=(0.445-0.321)/2=0.062MPa
Vertical distance to centre line ring

[m]
6
4
LDesign Approach1
2
LDesign Approach2
0
0.000
-2
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
LDesign/Analytical
Approach3
Theory Approach2
-4
-6
Radial soil pressure [MPa]
Figure 43. Radial soil pressure.
Figure 43 gives a graphical representation for the three approaches. For the sake of verification
the black squares give the direct values from the equation of the theory of approach 2. It is
68
noticed that the line LDesign approach 2 agrees exactly with the values according to the
Theory approach 2 (black squares). The figure shows clearly that the values of approach 1 are
smaller than those obtained with the approaches 2 and 3. Approach 2 involves the floating
component that is characterised by higher values at the bottom side of the ring than at to the top.
Approach 3 is symmetrical around the horizontal axis.
0
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-500
-1000
-1500
Angle [degrees]
Bending moment [kNm/0.75m]
Normal force [kN/0.75m]
6.2.2 Results from the different loading approaches

150
100
50
0
-50 0
-100
-150
60
180
240
300
360
Angle [degrees]
LDesign Approach1
LDesign Approach2
LDesign Approach3
Analytical Approach3
LDesign Approach1
LDesign Approach2
LDesign Approach3
Figure 44. Tangential normal forces.
120
Figure 45. Tangential bending moments.
Tangential stress [MPa]

outside ring
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
180
240
300
360
Angle [degrees]
LDesign Approach1
LDesign Approach2
LDesign Approach3
Figure 46. Tangential stresses at the outside of the ring.
Radial displacement [mm]
In Figure 44 the tangential normal forces from the calculations are graphically presented. The
figure shows 4 lines from 4 calculations. Three calculations by the frame analyses (called
LDesign) and 1 from the analytical solution for coupled rings in a soil continuum making use of
the loading of approach 3. As the figure shows, the solutions from approach 2 and 3 agree very
well with each other. The results of the frame analysis with the loading due to approach 1 are
clearly smaller for the normal forces. From the loading it was already clear that the average
pressure values according to this approach are lower. The same tendency is found for the
tangential bending moments in Figure 45 and the tangential stresses at the outside of the lining
in Figure 46. The tangential stresses are derived from the normal forces and the bending
moments.
6
4
2
0
-2 0
60
120
180
240
300
-4
-6
Angle [degrees]
LDesign Approach1
LDesign Approach2
LDesign Approach3
Figure 47. Radial displacements.
360
69
In Figure 47 the radial deformations are presented for the four calculations. Again the results
from approach 1 show smaller values than those from the approaches 2 and 3. The results from
approach 2 and 3 agree very well with each other for the frame analysis and the analytical
solution.
It is noticed that the tangential bending moments (Figure 45) and the tangential stresses (Figure
46) do not show a smooth sinus shape development, while the radial deformations (Figure 47)
show a smooth sinus shape. One is reminded that the coupling forces disturb the tangential
bending moments and the tangential stresses. Nevertheless the radial deformations still show the
sinus shape because of the dominance of the radial loading (2). Further background information
can be found in chapter 4 and in [2].
6.2.3 Conclusions with regard to the different approaches for the radial loading
The analyses of the lining involve the load at the lining. Three typical approaches for soil
loading have been compared. In all approaches only the radial loading component is considered.
It is obvious that approach 1, where the radial pressure is derived from the primary soil pressure
at the upper half of the ring, results in smaller values of the radial deformations, tangential
normal forces, tangential bending moments and tangential stresses.
Approach 2 uses the basic assumption that the effective vertical soil pressure will remain
constant along the ring circumference. This approach involves the floating component. So the
lining is floating and the soil support takes care of the equilibrium of vertical forces. Approach 3
is based on approach 2, whereas floating is eliminated by recalculation of the pressure values at
the top and the bottom of the ring. As the calculations show, the deformations, tangential normal
forces, tangential bending moments and tangential stresses are equal in all calculations with the
approaches 2 and 3. This supports the conclusion that the floating component of the soil
pressure on a ring in a soil continuum only results in floating of the ring (and uniform
compression of the ring). Approach 2 provides extra information about the vertical translation of
the lining in the soil. The floating component is of minor importance and can be omitted when
analysing the lining for its internal forces.
6.3
The uplift loading case
The loading case in this paragraph describes the loading on the rings due to grouting during the
assembly. The theory is explained by the use of 2D FEM calculations. The theory results in a
load case that can be used in the lining analyses.
The TBM has a larger diameter than the lining. As a result there is a gap between the lining and
the soil when the TBM has just passed. This gap has a width of several centimetres (10-30cm)
and is injected with injection material (e.g. grout). This grout causes an uplift force on the lining.
In this chapter some considerations are given about the uplifting force caused by the injection
materials. Special attention is given to the arrangement of the vertical force equilibrium. A
comparison is made between a FEM analysis of the uplift loading case and a static frame
analysis.
6.3.1 Introduction to the behaviour of the grout
The grout is assumed to be a well-mixed and very coherent fluid with water, particles and
(sometimes) cement. The rheologic properties largely depend on the particles and the cement.
70
The term paste is the analogy of the total of the fluid with particles and cement. The paste is not
really a liquid and not really a solid material. The water is considered to be present in the
material but as an integral part instead of an independent part.
The grout is called a rheopectic isochore viscoplastic material. Rheopectic means that the
viscosity increases with time under a constantly applied stress. In the grout this phenomenon is
known as the so-called hardening of the grout. For example: the plastic yield shear stress
increases with time. Isochore means that no deformations of the material occur due to isostatic
pressure. Sometimes the term hydrostatic is used here. This aspect describes the fluid part of
the grout material. The grout is viscoplastic when the internal plastic yield shear stress is
exceeded and unlimited shear deformations can occur. These large deformations (flow of the
grout) can not be neglected any more and the speed of the deformations influences the plastic
behaviour. This aspect describes the solid part of the grout material.
The material described involves two main aspects: time dependent properties and physical (fluid
and solid) properties. The analysis in this chapter does not involve the time dependent
properties. Actually the grout is observed as an isochore viscoplastic material with constant
properties in time.
The lining, the grout and the soil are assumed to be always enclosed by ground water. If the
lining and the soil are not in contact with the grout, then the water pressure only loads the grout.
In the grout the stresses occur due to the water pressure only. If the lining is in contact with the
grout, then the grout is loaded by the same water pressure and contact stresses between the
lining and the grout. To ensure equilibrium of forces the grout has to be in contact with the soil.
The loading from the soil is the sum of the water pressure and the soil particle stresses. Now two
loading aspects are declared: the water pressure and the lining-grout contact pressure. The water
pressure and lining-grout contact pressure load the lining. The stresses in the grout are also due
to the water pressure and the lining-grout contact pressure. It is concluded that the (local) grout
stresses never drop below the ground water pressure. Accordingly the acting load on the lining
never drops below the water pressure.
6.3.2 Introduction of the uplift loading case
It is assumed that the grout has the capacity of internal shear stress resistance. The shear stress
resistance is limited to a plastic shear yield stress (viscoplasticity). This means that the grout has
a resistance against flow, until the plastic shear yield stress limit is exceeded. From that point the
grout is able to flow, but with the existence of a plastic shear yield stress (stiffening is neglected
here).
The acting load in the uplift loading case on the lining is the sum of:
The radial grout pressure, which is the sum of:
The water pressure.
The lining-grout contact pressure.
The tangential grout loading (adhesion between the grout and the lining).
The dead weight of the lining.
71
These loading components ensure the equilibrium of the vertical forces. The vertical component
of the radial grout loading is equal to the dead weight (DW) of the tunnel and the vertical
component of the tangential loading.
grout ,radial ,vertical = DW + grout ,tan,vertical
At first instance it is assumed that the grout and the lining are not in contact. As a consequence
the initial stresses in the grout are equal to that of the water. The acting load on the lining is the
water pressure only. Due to loading the tunnel starts to move upward. The dead weight and the
tangential friction (adhesion) between the grout and the lining are not sufficient to resist the
uplift force due to the water pressure. Now at the top of the lining the lining starts to press on the
grout. Locally the grout stress starts to increase and the grout experiences the pressure to flow,
but the plastic shear yield stress of the grout is not exceeded yet, so flow is not occurring. As a
consequence the local grout pressure at the top of the ring increases (if there is sufficient
overburden of the soil above). At the bottom of the tunnel the lining and the grout are still not in
contact. Because the grout is not streaming yet, a gap occurs between the grout and the lining.
This gap is still filled with ground water. As a consequence the acting loading at the bottom of
the ring remains equal to the water pressure only. Due to the upward movement there is some
development of the tangential friction stresses between the grout and the lining, although this is
very small.
If it is assumed that the initial grout stresses are equal to the primary soil stresses, also an uplift
force acts on the lining (water pressure and lining-grout contact pressure). The uplift of the
lining causes an increase of the grout stresses at the top of the lining (actually an increase of the
lining-grout pressure). At the bottom of the ring the uplift corresponds with a decrease of the
local grout pressure (actually a decrease of the lining-grout pressure).
The upward moving process continues when the increase of the pressure at the top (and decrease
at the bottom) of the tunnel is not enough to compensate the uplifting force of the grout. Next
the plastic shear yield stress capacity limit of the grout is exceeded. This is the moment that the
grout starts to flow. A transportation process of the grout starts from the top of the lining in
sideway direction. A large zone occurs where the plastic shear yield stress in the grout is
exceeded if the upward movement of the tunnel is large enough. This means that along the
circumference of a large part of the tunnel the tangential stresses act, with the maximum value
of the plastic shear yield stress of the grout. Finally the equilibrium of the vertical forces is
realised by:
The dead weight of the tunnel (downward).
The downward directed tangential stresses at a maximum of the plastic shear yield stress
of the grout (downward).
The grout pressure (water pressure and lining-grout contact pressure ) with the local stress
spot at the top of the ring (upward).
This process of loading, the flow of the grout and the establishment of the equilibrium of
vertical forces is analysed in a FEM calculation. The results of the FEM calculation are used to
gain insight into the remaining grout pressure (water pressure and lining-grout contact pressure)
and its distribution around the lining. The resulting load is used in a frame analysis.
72
6.3.3 The application of the uplift loading case in a FEM model
Original position of
the inside of the
lining
Original soil position
Original grout position

and distribution
Figure
49.
Movement
and
deformation of the lining due to the
upward movement and pressure
development.
Figure 48. Soil movement due to the

upward movement of the tunnel.
Figure 50. Flow and redistribution

of the grout fluid (deformation scale
10:1).
The FEM analysis involves linear elastic soil and lining behaviour. The lining is homogeneous
and is assumed to have a Youngs modulus of 70% (the influence of longitudinal joints) of
36500MPa. The grout is modelled using a viscoplastic material model, incorporating volume
preservation and has an assumed plastic shear yield stress of 1.5*10-3MPa. The tunnel is situated
with an overburden of 12500mm. The level of the water table is at the surface. In this FEM
analysis it is arranged that there is always contact between the lining and the grout (the lininggrout contact pressure never drops below zero). The initial grout stresses are due to the primary
soil stresses.
Local stress increase
V ertical distance to centre line

tunnel [mm]
8000
6000
FEM: radial grout

pressure
4000
2000
0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
-2000
-4000
C
A
-6000
-8000
radial pressure [MPa]
Figure 51. The radial pressure of the several loading components of the grout.
FEM: radial lininggrout contact

pressure
hydrostatic
pressure
73
Figure 48 shows the movement of the soil due to the uplift of the lining. Within the excavated
and deformed soil the lining is moving and deforming (Figure 49). The gap between the soil and
the lining is filled with grout (Figure 50). It is obvious that there is a grout transport between the
top and the bottom of the ring. At the top of the ring the available space is smaller than at the
bottom of the ring. Due to the requirement of preserving grout volume, there is the flow of the
grout. Because of the relative difference in deformation between the lining and the soil, there is
a pressure development in the grout (Figure 51).
Figure 51 shows that the sum of the hydrostatic water pressure (C) and the grout-lining contact
pressure (B) is exactly the grout pressure (A). This was already described in 6.3.1. The grout
pressure (the water pressure and the lining-grout contact pressure) results in an uplift force that
compensates the downward direct loading due to dead weight and tangential stresses at the
grout-lining contact surface. It is obvious that the distribution of the grout pressure at the top of
the lining shows a local increase of the grout pressure (Figure 51).
Stiffness distribution of the
fictitious radial top support
on upper half of the ring
1000mm
soil
Injection
material
Dead weight
lining
TBM
lining
Modeled ring
lining
Assumed
vertical free
translation
Tangential plastic
yield stress of
grout
Grout pressure as
load
Figure 52. The static system in the analysis of LDesign (frame analysis).
The calculation of the FEM model is controlled with a frame analysis. A static system is used as
shown in Figure 52. The total dead weight of the lining (of a part of 1000mm) is:
2rdb = 2 * 6950 * 600 *1000 * 24.5 * 10 6 = 642kN
When the tangential component of the grout only involves the maximum plastic shear yield
stress of the assumed value of 1.5*10-3MPa, then the vertical force resulting from the tangential
stresses is (two sides of the tunnel):
2rb yield * 2 = 2 * 7250 * 1000 * 1.5 * 10 3 * 2 = 44kN
The equilibrium of vertical forces is arranged by the vertical downward directed loading by the
dead weight and the tangential stresses and the upward directed loading by the grout pressure.
The question is what value and distribution the upward direct grout pressure has.
The local increase of the pressure at the top of the ring is omitted when the upward directed
loading is a pure hydrostatic loading with an equivalent specific weight that exactly compensates
the dead weight and the tangential stresses. The upward grout loading should have a resulting
equivalent specific weight that results in an upward loading of 642 + 44 = 686kN.
74
Assume an equivalent hydrostatic pressure that compensates the resulting downward directed
loading of the dead weight and the tangential stresses. The equivalent hydrostatic pressure
results in an upward loading equal to:
Fup = r 2 b eq
The equivalent specific weight of the grout pressure is:
686kN
686 * 10 3
eq =
=
= 4.15kN / m 3
r 2 b
* 7250 2 *1000
This value represents the addition of the always presenting hydrostatic water pressure and the
grout-lining contact pressure. In other words: the grout-lining contact pressure has a negative
gradient of 10-4.15=5.85kN/m3. The value of eq=4.15kN/m3 is also found when the lining is
embedded in an uniform soil continuum and loaded with hydrostatic water pressure (involving
the dead weight and the tangential stresses due to the grout-lining adhesion). This means that the
grout-lining contact behaves like a kind of uniform bedding. In this case the grout-lining contact
is able to uniformly compensate the uplift force due to the hydrostatic water pressure.
The resulting load on the lining compensates the dead weight and the tangential yield stresses
exactly and the internal bending moments are only due to the dead weight and the tangential
stresses. As a consequence the tangential bending moments are very small. The tangential
bending moments do not occur at all in the case that the dead weight and the tangential stresses
are omitted.
The comparison of this equivalent hydrostatic pressure (due to eq=4.15kN/m3) with the radial
grout pressure from the FEM analysis is shown in Figure 53. It is obvious that the gradient of the
pressure in the FEM calculation has a higher value and that there is a local increase of the
pressure at the top of the ring. This increase of the local pressure at the top of the ring is caused
by the inability of the grout at the top of the ring to flow away. As a matter of fact the grout is
locked in its position, while sideways of the tunnel the grout is able to flow to the downward
part of the ring.
8000
FEM: radial grout pressure
Vertical distance to centre line
tunnel [mm]
6000
4000
2000
0
0.300
-2000
0.350
0.400
0.450
Frame analysis: Uplift load

(hydrost. Water pressure +
DW + TgYield + fic. Top
support)
(equivalent hydro pressure
+DW + TgYield)
-4000
-6000
-8000
Figure 53. Upward loading as a grout pressure resulting from the FEM analysis or as an equivalent hydrostatic
pressure or hydrostatic water pressure with vertical compensation support.
75
The total upward force increases when the equivalent hydrostatic pressure has a higher gradient.
This has to be compensated by the increase of the local pressure at the top of the ring. In the
following frame analysis it is assumed that there is only a fictitious radial support at the top of
the ring (Figure 52) with a stiffness distribution as shown in Figure 54, which results in the local
compensating pressure at the top of the ring. The distribution of the stiffness of the fictitious top
support in Figure 54 has a square cosine distribution:
k r ~ cos 2 ( )
Analyses of several distribution patterns have shown that the proposed distribution in Figure 54
results in a very good agreement between the grout pressure resulting from the FEM analysis
and the frame analysis.
At the downside of the ring it is assumed that the grout-lining contact does not contribute any
pressure (no contact between lining and grout). The vertical force that is arranged by the
fictitious top support is called Ftop. This force is equal to the force due to the increase of the
gradient of the grout pressure (eq):
Ftop = r 2 b eq
The resulting equivalent gradient of the grout pressure is eq + eq = eq. The equilibrium of
vertical forces can now be expressed as:
Fdeadweight + Ftgstresses + Ftop = r 2 b 'eq
Stiffness distribution
Without the information of the FEM calculation it is still unknown what value (and distribution)
the increase of the gradient has. But the value must be in-between the equivalent hydrostatic
pressure that compensates the dead weight and the tangential stresses and, as a maximum, the
hydrostatic water pressure.
Fdeadweight + Ftgstresses
'eq w
r 2 b
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-90
-45
45
90
Angle [degrees]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-7500
-2500
2500
distance to centre of ring [mm]
7500
Figure 54. Stiffness of the radial fictitious compensation support at the top of the ring, as a function of the angle and
as a function of the horizontal distance to the centre of the tunnel.
76
If it is assumed that the grout gradient is equal to that of the water, then the reacting force at the
top is high. The summation of the grout pressure and the reaction stresses results in the acting
pressure on the ring. This reaction stress is shown in Figure 53. It is obvious that the assumed
gradient is too high and that therefore the reaction stresses at the top of the ring are high. The
values from the FEM calculation are based on a grout gradient between the lower bound
equivalent specific weight and the upper bound water pressure.
The gradient of the resulting grout pressure decreases when there is an uniform bedding around
the ring. The next case therefore involves a uniform bedding (contact pressure) around the
tunnel and the additional fictitious top support (lock up of grout at the top). The initially acting
load is the hydrostatic water pressure. The addition of the uniform bedding (lining-grout contact
pressure), the fictitious top support (locked grout) and the acting load (hydrostatic water
pressure) results in the grout pressure acting on the lining itself.
A choice is made for the stiffness ratio between the uniform bedding and the fictitious top
support. Without arguments here, it is assumed that the maximum stiffness value of the
fictitious soil support is related to the overburden and the radius of the lining. When the value of
the uniform bedding is 1, the maximum value of the fictitious top bedding is:
k fictitious = cos 2 ( )
where
h s
=
1
r w
The total bedding is kuniform + kfictitious.
When the value of the uniform bedding is 1, the maximum value of the fictitious top bedding is
12.5/6.95*20/10-1+1=3.60. As a result the bedding at the top of the ring is 3.60 times the
uniform value (see also Figure 57). In the frame analysis the bedding constant is chosen very
low (1N/mm) so that the compensating forces can develop evenly and the deformations of the
lining are not directly disturbed by the discrete radial springs. The resulting grout pressure is
presented in Figure 55. This pressure is the addition of the water pressure and the pressures due
to the uniform support (lining-grout contact stresses) and the fictitious top support (locked
grout). The resulting grout pressure in Figure 55 agrees very well with the pressure found with
the FEM analysis.
The analysis of the internal forces and the deformations of the lining shows a good agreement
with the results from the FEM analysis (Table 11).
The stiffness ratio of the fictitious top support depends on the overburden. This is done because
of the ability of the overburden weight to resist the pressure increase at the top of the ring. The
overburden weight of the soil decreases if the overburden decreases. The ability to increase the
local pressure at the top of the ring is influenced by the above weight. FEM calculations with
varying overburden are made to show this influence. The results are shown in the following
paragraph.
77
8000
tunnel [mm]
6000
FEM: radial grout pressure
4000
2000
0
0.000
-2000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
(hydrost. Water pressure +
DW + TgYield + fic. Top
support)
-4000
-6000
-8000
Figure 55. Comparison between the FEM grout pressure and pressure obtained with the frame analysis with uniform
and fictitious top bedding. The load is the hydrostatic water pressure.
Table 11. Radial deformations and maximum bending moments due to the FEM analysis and the frame analysis
with the uplift loading case (overburden 12.5m).
Horizontal radius deformation rh

Vertical radius deformation rv
Maximum bending moment Mmax
FEM analysis
(estimated values)
~5mm
~-7.5mm
~240kNm/m
Frame analysis,
uplift case
5.5mm
-8.0mm
246kNm/m
6.3.4 The influence of the overburden

From the FEM analysis it has become clear that the grout pressure distribution is depending on
the overburden. The overburden is the soil weight above the tunnel. Figure 56 shows the grout
pressure distribution for several overburden cases from 2.5m to 17.5m. The case analysed in the
previous chapter has an overburden of 12.5m.
In practice the shallow cases (2.5 7.5m) might result in breaking up of the lining out of the
soil. In this chapter the load cases are still used, to illustrate the influence of a shallow
overburden.
From Figure 56 it is clear that the overburden has a particular influence on the local pressure
development at the top of the tunnel. The weight of the soil overburden is not capable to
compensate the pressure increase of the grout pressure in the shallow overburden cases (e.g.
2.5m). Therefore a pressure drop is observed at the top of the ring. The grout pressure at the
shoulders (315 and 45 ) increases to ensure the equilibrium of vertical forces in these cases. It
is clear that the pressure spots at the top of the tunnel increase more and more in the full
overburden cases (from 7.5m and deeper). In all cases the average gradient of the grout at the
tunnel centre is about 6.7kN/m3.
78
8000

tunnel [mm]
6000
4000
2.5m 5m 7.5m
12.5m
17.5m
2000
0
0.000
-2000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
-4000
-6000
-8000
radial pressure [M Pa]
Figure 56. Distribution of the grout pressure over the depth of the tunnel, for several overburden cases, due to the
FEM analyses.
The static frame analysis has to deliver the local pressure increases at the top. This is realised by
the fictitious top support at the upper half of the ring (Figure 54). An uniform bedding is applied
around the tunnel to decrease the average gradient of the pressure.
The fictitious support distribution is depending on the weight of the overburden. Therefore the
stiffness ratio is introduced for the maximum value of the fictitious top support. If the uniform
bedding has a stiffness of 1, the maximum value of the fictitious top support is 1 times the ratio:
h s
=
1
r w
An example of the stiffness distribution at the top of the ring in the uplift loading case is given
in Figure 54. The total stiffness distribution along the tunnel circumference is shown in Figure
57.
3
2
1
0
0
45
90
135 180 225

Angle [degrees]
270
315
360
Figure 57. Example of the stiffness values of the radial bedding in the uplift loading case, if the overburden is equal
to the radius of the lining.
With the FEM model several situations are calculated where the overburden is varying. The
frame analysis with the uplift loading case is used where the stiffness ratio due to the overburden
is the value mentioned in Table 12. The resulting grout pressure is presented in Figure 58. The
79
resulting pressures agree very well for the several overburden cases in the FEM analyses and the
frame analyses. In Table 12 the values are presented for the internal tangential bending moment in
in the lining and the radial deformations in the horizontal and vertical directions. The values
show a good agreement between the results of the FEM calculation and those of the frame
analysis with the uplift loading case.
8000

tunnel [mm]
6000
12.5m
17.5m
Frame
analysis,
uplift with
uniform
and
fictitious
top support
4000
2.5m 5m
2000
7.5m
0
0.000
-2000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
FEM
analysis,
uplift
-4000
-6000
-8000
radial pressure [M Pa]
Figure 58. Comparison of the grout pressure distribution due to the FEM analysis and the frame analysis with the
uplift loading case, for several overburden cases.
The frame analysis with the uplift loading case is applied for the overburden cases of 2.5m and
deeper. From the grout pressure distribution in Figure 56 it is clear that in these shallow cases
the pressure at the top of the ring is very much influenced by the heave of the soil. As a
consequence the radial deformations will show an interesting development.
From Table 12 it is clear that the radial deformations decrease when the overburden decreases.
The development of the radial deformations is presented in Figure 59. In the cases where the
overburden is 7.5m and more, the vertical deformation is a decrease of the diameter, while the
horizontal deformation is an increase of the diameter. The resulting ovalisation of the lining is
an oval with the largest diameter in the horizontal direction. If the overburden is just 2.5m the
oval shows the largest diameter on the vertical axis (standing egg). If the overburden is around
5m the deformation is nearly a uniform compression.
This phenomenon is known from several tunnel projects in practice. In the shallow overburden
situation the ovalisation has the largest diameter in the vertical direction, while in the deeper
situations the ovalisation shows the largest diameter in the horizontal direction.
It is obvious that the fictitious top support has a dominant influence on the radial deformations
of the lining. A special issue in the upload loading case is the equilibrium of vertical forces.
When local grout pressures increase, the soil has to compensate this pressure to take care of the
equilibrium of vertical forces. Sometimes the soil stresses can change very much. In appendix C
analytical examples are given of tunnels with large overburden. It is calculated that the soil
80
stresses above the tunnel can reach values very close to critical shear stresses. From these
examples it becomes clear that the phenomenon that the tunnel deforms to a standing egg can
also occur in the cases with larger overburden.
Table 12. Radial deformations and maximum bending moments due to the FEM analysis and the frame analysis
with the uplift loading case (several overburden cases).
Overburden [m]
Ratio fictitious
top support
stiffness
Horizontal radius
deformation rh
[mm]
Vertical radius
deformation rv
[mm]
Maximum
bending moment
Mmax [kNm/m]
FEM analysis
(estimated values)
2.5
5
7.5
Frame analysis, uplift case

12.5
17.5
2.5
-0.3
5
0.44
7.5
1.15
12.5
2.6
17.5
4.03
-3.5
3.7
-2.4
1.1
3.3
4.9
6.0
2.5
-1.5
-5.5
-7.5
-9
1.3
-2.9
-5.3
-7.5
-9.1
41
51
168
240
282
65
74
153
224
273
radial deformation [mm]
9
6
3
0
-3
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
-6
-9
overburden [m]
Figure 59. Horizontal and vertical radial deformations due to the FEM calculations as function of the overburden
(The shallow overburden cases might result in the break up of the lining through the soil. This mechanism is not
involved here).
The FEM calculations for the several overburden cases show different uniform pressure values
at the side of the tunnel (e.g. overburden 12.5m, r,side=0.350MPa and overburden 17.5m,
r,side=0.434MPa). This value is a result of initial stresses in the soil and the development of the
stresses in the grout. The actual specific weight of the soil in the FEM calculations is
s=20kN/m3. In the overburden case of 12.5m the radial pressure at the side of the tunnel might
be estimated as follows:
The overburden above the tunnel contributes 12.5m soil times the specific weight of
20kN/m3. This results in a pressure of 0.250MPa.

-
81
The equivalent specific weight of the grout is (on average) 20kN/m3 5.85 = 14.15kN/m3.
The height over the tunnel of 7.25m times this equivalent specific weight gives 0.100MPa.
The total radial pressure at the side of the tunnel is 0.250+0.100=0.350MPa.
6.3.5 Conclusions for the uplift loading case

The TBM has a larger diameter than the lining. As a result there is a gap between the lining and
the soil. This gap has a width of several centimetres (10-30cm) and is injected with injection
material (e.g. grout). This grout causes an uplift force on the lining.
From the analysis in this chapter it is clear that the grout pressure consists of a water pressure
and a grout-lining contact pressure. The equilibrium of vertical forces is ensured by the dead
weight of the lining, the tangential stresses (adhesion of the grout and the lining which are at
maximum the plastic shear yield stresses of the grout) and a compensation pressure due to the
lining-grout contact stresses of the grout.
It is assumed that the grout has the capacity to resist shear stresses. This capacity is limited to
the plastic shear yield stress (viscoplastic behaviour). When the shear stresses exceed this stress
level, the grout is able to flow. Local spots with pressure increase occur due to the resistance
against the flow. In the analysed cases these spots mainly occurred at the top of the ring (locked
grout). The addition of the hydrostatic water pressure and the grout-lining pressure, results in the
final grout pressure that acts on the lining and that causes the deformation and the internal forces
of the lining.
The analysis of the grout pressure has resulted in the uplift loading case that can be applied in a
frame analysis. In this uplift loading case the acting load is the hydrostatic water pressure.
Around the lining an uniform bedding is presented (the ability to develop lining-grout contact
stresses). To implement an increase of the local pressure at the top of the ring an additional
fictitious support is added (representing locked grout, which can hardly flow sideways the
tunnel) with a determined stiffness ratio to the uniform bedding. The ratio is depending on the
overburden above the tunnel.
The comparison of several overburden cases has shown a very good agreement between the
results of the FEM analysis and the frame analysis with the uplift loading case.
From the cases treated it has become clear that the deformed shape of the tunnel is an oval. At a
larger depth the oval has the largest diameter in the horizontal direction. In the shallow cases the
oval has the largest diameter in the vertical direction. These shapes have also been observed in
practice. The change of the shape is directly depending on the soil overburden above the tunnel.
In the shallow cases the weight of the overburden soil is too small to compensate the pressure
increase at the top of the tunnel.
The uplift loading case involves an uniform bedding around the lining. This is to realise the
ability to develop lining-grout contact stresses in the grout that partly compensate the uplift force
of the hydrostatic water pressure. The lining-grout contact at the underside of the tunnel
experiences a tensile stress change when the tunnel is moving upward. The initial compression
stress in the lining-grout contact must be higher than the tensile stress change to ensure the
lining-grout contact at the underside of the tunnel. The grout pressure at the under side of the
82
tunnel is the hydrostatic water pressure if the lining-grout contact does not have that initial
compression stress that compensates the (tensile) stress change (e.g. incomplete grouting, too
much upward movement, too small amount of particles in the grout, too low initial pressure in
the grout).
6.4
Consequences of the uplift loading case in relation to the segmental thickness
In 6.1 a set of load cases is presented which are mainly related to the serviceability stage. From
the analysis of these load cases it has become clear that the lining thickness has a reverse effect
on the total safety of the system. The total stiffness of the lining increases when the lining
thickness is increasing. As a consequence the internal forces are increasing. The increase of the
internal forces is larger than the increase of the capacity of the segments due to the thickness.
Due to the load cases in the serviceability stage the models will show an increase of the safety
with decreasing lining thickness. Nevertheless the lining thickness is never optimised to this
load case. The observed segmental thickness applied is never the optimum value that follows
from these load cases.
An opinion often heart is that with a thinner lining the deformations will increase and therefore
the relative displacements of the ring increase and opening of the longitudinal joint might occur
(leakage). Another opinion is that the concrete thickness applied is necessary during the
construction stage of the lining, mainly to resist the dominant axial directed jack forces.
Next to the jack forces another load case might occur during the construction stage. This is the
uplift loading case described in 6.3. Figure 60 shows the safety factors for the lining of the BRT
in the two load cases. On the horizontal axis the increasing lining thickness is given. On the
vertical axis the safety factor to the ultimate capacity of the segments with reinforcement
FeB500 10-100 is shown.
7
Mu standard (coupled
ring)
Safety factor gamma
Mu uplift (coupled ring,

incompl grouting)
5
4
Mu standard (hom ring)
3
Mu uplift (hom ring,
incompl grouting)
2
1
Mu uplift (coupled ring,

compl grouting)
0
0
200
400
600
800
Segmental thickness d [mm]

Figure 60. Safety factors for the standard and the uplift loading cases (complete and incomplete grouting, geometry
BRT).
83
The standard load case shows a decrease of the safety factor when the segmental thickness
increases. If the lining thickness increases over 600mm the safety factor starts to increase again.
The uplift loading case shows an increase of the safety factor when the lining thickness
increases. Based on the standard load case the segmental thickness should be chosen small. This
means a minimum use of concrete, which reduces costs, and a maximum safety factor. Based on
the uplift loading case the concrete thickness is chosen larger to have a minimum required safety
factor. The figure also shows the influence of complete or incomplete grouting. The incomplete
grouting results in a far more pessimistic safety factor. This means that incomplete grouting
should be avoided. During the assembly it has to be arranged that the grout pressure around the
lining is sufficient and well distributed.
The essence of the decreasing safety factor with a larger segmental thickness in the standard load
case is a consequence of the development of the internal forces in the lining and the capacity of
the segments. The internal forces do not increase that much as a result of the supporting
influence of the surround soil. Figure 61 shows the reduction factor 2. With increasing lining
thickness the reduction factor 2 decreases. This means that a larger part of the initial loading is
acting on the lining, causing internal forces. As a consequence the internal forces in the concrete
will increase. The safety factor of the uplift loading cases increases fast with increasing lining
thickness. This is because of the balancing influence of the dead weight of the lining that
compensates the uplift force. In case of a thinner lining the application of ballast could have a
positive influence on the safety, especially when incomplete grouting occurs.
1
Alpha2
Alpha2 [-]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Segmental thickness [mm]

Figure 61. Reduction factor 2 (the part of the initial loading that is stabilised by the soil) as a function of the
segmental thickness for the standard load case at the BRT.
The soil support is especially useful at the sides of the rings (if the ovalisation results in a
increase of the horizontal diameter. Otherwise the soil support at the top and bottom is very
useful). In the uplift loading case this support is omitted. The internal forces are much more
constant when the segmental thickness increases, while the capacity of the segments increases.
As a consequence the safety factor increases in the uplift loading case when the segmental
thickness increases.
This description is illustrative for the behaviour of the lining at the assembly. The soil support
has a major influence on the internal forces. When the soil support is omitted because of, for
example, liquid grouting that is not stiffening in a short time, the general safety of the lining can
dangerously drop. Or rephrased: Once one can control the grouting process in a way that soil
84
support is guaranteed, the segmental thickness can be optimised to be thinner. From the point of
view of the serviceability stage (normal loading case) a thick lining is not necessary. When the
segmental thickness is demanded by, for example, the axial jack forces, for sure the segmental
thickness is not optimal.
6.5
Tail void injection material
During the excavation the tail void is injected with injection material (e.g. grout). Pressure and
volume mostly control the injection process. Contractors might prefer typical properties of the
injected material depending on the objective of the injection and the soil conditions. Mainly two
objectives are set. First the settlements are compensated. Secondly drifting of the lining is
avoided. The second objective is lately observed while the first one is a main requirement in
other projects. Mostly the two objectives are not simultaneously implemented.
The injected material can consist of all kind of materials, e.g.: grout with cement, grout without
cement, soil mixed cement, soil without cement, two component mixes, etc. A parallel between
all these variants is the liquid phase and the stiffened phase. The time necessary to stiffen is a
very important factor in the lining analyses. Only injected material with a certain stiffness can
ensure sufficient soil support to the lining. From the point of view of the lining, the injection
material should ensure the soil support as soon as possible. When the soil supports the lining
immediately the uplift loading case is skipped. As shown in 6.3 this results in a better safety
factor for the lining. The stiffening time of the injected material is very often subject of
discussion. Saturation and chemical reaction influence the stiffening time.
Another important influence of the injected material is the disturbance of the primary soil
pressure. Due to the excavation it is very often stated that the initial soil pressures decreases.
The injection material partly compensates this pressure disturbance. Sometimes overpressure of
the injection material might exceed the initial soil pressure. It is mostly assumed that the initial
soil pressure might return after a while. The necessary time depends on the soil characteristics
and the load history.
From the point of view of the lining the pressure distribution on the lining is very important. The
uncertainty of the pressure distribution is of poor influence on the reliability in the design of the
lining. The injection pressure of the injected material should not result in a negative influence on
the internal forces in the lining. Local pressure spots can badly influence the internal forces in
the lining and should be avoided.
6.6
Early age considerations of the tangential loading component
The load on the lining is converted to a radial and a tangential component. From the literature
[2] and the design practice it has become clear that the application of the tangential component
of the loading is not beyond discussion. To fully activate the tangential load component in the
contribution to the internal forces in the lining, there must be a full and stiff friction between the
soil, the grout and the lining. In the early age of the injection material there is a stiffening
process of the injected material. During the stiffening of the injected material the radial load
component is already acting on the lining and contributing to the internal forces in the lining.
Nevertheless the tangential load component is not activated because of a minimal or low friction
85
between the soil and the injected material and between the injected material and the lining. It is
often assumed that in this phase the tangential component of the load does not occur.
Since this thesis is mainly handling about early age tunnels, the tangential loading component
will not be implemented.
6.7
Non-linear calculations for the ring without soil interaction
Most calculations done in practice do not involve non-linear behaviour to examine the ULS. To
illustrate the influence of the geometrical and physical non-linear behaviour first a single ring is
analysed without soil. At first instance the ring load is a uniform compression (0=0.5MPa).
Subsequently the ovalisation load increases in steps (2). The geometrical data is according to
the BRT.
20
geom lin, phys lin, no
joints
O valisation load [% of Sig0]
Geom lin, phys lin, no joints

16
Geom lin, phys nl, no joints
geom lin, phys nl, no

joints
12
Geom nl, phys nl, with lin joints

8
geom nl, phys nl,

with lin joints
Geom lin, phys lin, plastic hinges (joints)
geom lin, phys lin,

plastic hinges
(Mpl=N max*lt/2)
Geom nl, phys nl, joints nl

0
0
20
40
60
80
100
goem nl, phys nl,

with joints nl
u_bottom [mm]
Figure 62. The ovalisation loading (2) as function of the radial deformation at the bottom of the ring, for a ring
without soil support.
Figure 62 shows the results of the calculations of a homogeneous ring with full linear behaviour
to a ring with non-linear longitudinal joints and geometrically and physically non-linear
behaviour. The figure shows clearly that the longitudinal joints have a very dominant effect on
the deformations. If the ULS is defined as the situation where deformations increase infinitely,
the non-linear behaviour of the longitudinal joints is dominant. Neglecting the non-linear
behaviour of the longitudinal joints would overestimate the capacity of the ring with more than a
factor of two. If a geometrically and physically linear (for the segments) calculation is made, but
the plastic moment of the longitudinal joints is involved, the maximum loading found is equal to
the full non-linear analysis. The value of the plastic moment of the longitudinal joint can easily
be estimated from chapter 4, if it is assumed that the rotational stiffness drops to a very low
value (cr 0):
Nl
M pl , jo int = t b
2
In case of an unsupported ring, the tangential normal force is uniquely defined by the loading.
The value of the tangential bending moment for the plastic hinges is known.
86
From this analysis it can be concluded that the analysis of the ring for the ULS should at least
involve the ultimate capacity of the longitudinal joints. The maximum allowable acting force is
estimated well. The more the loading reaches this ultimate allowable loading, the more there is a
discrepancy between the predicted and the real deformations.
A lining has an additional support of the soil when there is a proper interaction through the
hardened injection material around the circumference of the lining. From the previous chapters it
has become clear that the soil support reduces the active loading on the lining. The question is
whether or not the ULS can be analysed in the same way as is done for the system without soil
support. This problem is analysed in the next paragraph.
6.8
Non-linear calculations for the ring with full soil support
Ovalisation load [% of Sig0]
100
geom lin, phys lin, no
joints
80
60
geom lin, phys nl, no

joints
40
goem nl, phys nl,

with joints nl
20
EA infinite, EI=0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
u_bottom [mm]
Figure 63. The ovalisation loading (2) as a function of the radial deformation at the bottom of the ring, for a ring
with full soil support.
In contradiction to the previous paragraph the soil support is taken into account. In this academic
case the ring is fully embedded in the soil and the (elastic) soil support is always present, even
when the deformations are very large and the soil executes a tensile force on the system. Figure
63 shows the results of several analyses for a homogeneous ring with geometrically and
physically linear behaviour to a ring with non-linear longitudinal joints and geometrically and
physically non-linear behaviour. The figure shows only progressive lines without any failure
limits. If the system includes the non-linear longitudinal joints and / or physically non-linear
behaviour, then the rings bending stiffness drops very quickly. The increasing ovalisation load
is then compensated by the soil reactions only (2 1). This is illustrated by the academic case
that the systems bending stiffness is zero (EI = 0), while the normal stiffness is infinite (EA =
) in Figure 63. From an analysis where the ring is fully embedded in (elastic) soil there will not
be a limit state where deformations infinitely increase due to bending. This means that the ULS
can not be analysed like for the ring without soil support.
The following paragraphs will enter into some considerations around the ULS of the lining in
soil.

6.9
87
The Ultimate Limit State (ULS) consideration
As shown in chapter 4 and 5 the internal forces very much depend on the influence of the soil.
The total stability of the ring is mainly influenced by the soil, especially when the ring deforms
much. This is illustrated by the case that the segmented lining does not have any bending
stiffness but has a realistic normal stiffness. In this case the ring deforms until there is
equilibrium between the soil reaction force and the active loading (Figure 63). The internal
forces in the lining do not show tangential bending moments but show tangential normal forces
only.
When the ring has a realistic bending stiffness, the deformation of the lining results in internal
tangential bending moments. While the deformation of the ring increases the tangential bending
moments increase. This continues until the capacity of the segmental bending moment is locally
reached (Md = Mu, physical non-linear behaviour). In calculations with static linear analysis this
is the moment to say that the ULS is reached. In case of a physically non-linear analysis the ring
is still stable. The active loading can still increase without an excessive increase of the
deformation of the lining. A plastic hinge occurs at the location where the tangential bending
moment exceeds the capacity. Plastic hinges occur while the deformations increase more and
more. Finally plastic hinges are present at various locations in the lining. As a consequence the
deformations of the lining increase due to increasing active loading, but the internal tangential
bending moments remain constant. The increase of the loading is fully compensated by the soil
reaction as if the ring has no bending stiffness (2 1). With the increase of the loading and the
exceedance of the ultimate bending capacity of the lining the ring is still stable. Of course
deformations can have unwanted values, but this is more an exceedance of the SLS.
From this point of view the tangential bending moments will never result in the exceedance of
the ULS. Nevertheless there is a limit value to be considered for the ULS. This is the tangential
normal force. The tangential normal force is almost constant around the lining circumference. If
at one spot the ultimate capacity of the segmental normal force is exceeded, the total stability of
the lining will fail. This is a true exceedance of the ULS.
ULS: Nd>Nu
Still there are other mechanisms to consider. These are the local buckling and the snap through
mechanism. These mechanisms are treated in the following paragraphs.
6.10
The local stability problem of the lining
To determine the limit state due to local buckling the analysis from literature [7] is used.
The previous paragraph mentioned that the lining finally reaches deformations where the ring
shows plastic hinges at various locations. This has an implication on the sustainable normal
force in the lining in relation to its local stability.
According to [7] the maximum uniform pressure on the lining before local instability is reached,
is determined as a function of the bending stiffness of the lining and its radius. When the
uniform pressure exceeds this value the stability of the lining is in danger. The local
deformations might increase substantially.
88
Ec d 3
4r 3
This maximum pressure results in a deformation of the lining with a highest buckling length
being a quarter of the circle circumference. The maximum pressure can also be approached by
Eulers solution of a buckling bar:
2 EI
N= 2
l
r
with N = 0 rb and a buckling length of a quarter of the circumference l = :
2
Ec d 3
0,max, Euler =
3r 3
0, max =
Imagine that the lining is cracked everywhere, then the fictitious Youngs modulus decreases.
As a consequence the maximum allowable uniform pressure decreases. This conclusion can be
reversed to the situation that there is always a uniform pressure around the lining. As a result the
Youngs modulus of the lining is not allowed to drop below a certain value to avoid local
buckling:
4 0 r 3
E c ,min >
d3
On the other hand it is of interest what segmental thickness is at least required to avoid buckling.
The equation is therefore reformulated to:
4 0
d > r3
E c , min
minimal thickness d [mm]
1200
Ec= 1000
1000
Ec= 10000
800
Ec= 30000
600
400
200
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
r 3 0 [mm3 MPa ]
Figure 64. Minimum required segmental thickness to avoid buckling, as a function of the radius, the uniform
pressure and the concrete Young's modulus.
Figure 64 shows the graphical representation of this equation. The minimal required segmental
thickness is predominantly influenced by the concrete Youngs modulus. In case of heavy
cracking in the concrete the Youngs modulus strongly reduces. This applies at the onset of the
local buckling.
89
The previous presentation of the buckling mechanism did not include the influence of the soil
support. It is known from, for example, piles that the soil support has a very positive influence
on the buckling resistance. The buckling mechanism including the soil support is not dealt with
here, since the worst case is the ring without soil support.
During the construction of the lining the injection pressure loads the rings (e.g. grout pressure).
The loading pressure can be high, because the surrounding pressure has to be stabilised. Assume
a pressure of 1MPa and a radius of the tunnel of 7200mm (GHT). Depending on the assumed
concrete Youngs modulus the minimum required segmental thickness is read from Figure 64
and presented in Table 13.
The GHT is applied with a segmental thickness of 600mm. From Table 13 it is clear that the
concrete Youngs modulus should not drop below 10000MPa to avoid buckling.
Table 13. Minimal required segmental thickness GHT due to uniform pressure of 1MPa avoiding buckling.
Ec [MPa]
1000
10000
30000
Segmental thickness [mm]

d>
1143mm
530mm
368mm
It is notified that the presented concrete Youngs modulus is an equivalent value for the ring.
That means that the solution is based on the approximation of a homogeneous ring. The
longitudinal joints and joint interactions are not included. It is estimated that, due to the
longitudinal joints, the bending stiffness of the ring decreases from 100% to 80% of that of a
homogeneous ring. The minimum required concrete Youngs modulus at the GHT, during the
construction should be 12500MPa. The consideration of the longitudinal joints can also result in
a change of the buckling length compared to the length of a segment. If it is assumed that the
ring has nine segments then the buckling length is one ninth of the circumference and the
minimum thickness of the lining is according to Eulers solution:
0.6 0
d > r3
Ec ,min
This results in more optimistic values for the required thickness.
An alternative trivial solution to buckling is to take care of the soil support by quickly injecting
stiffening injection materials.
A remark is made with regard to the initial deformations in relation to the buckling theory. The
buckling force is independent of the initial shape of the ring. This means that the ring must
approach a circle but can have an initial deformation. Therefore deformations due to ovalisation
loading (2) can be separated from the uniform pressure (0).
In the case of the economical optimisation the segmental thickness is reduced. From the analysis
it is clear that the buckling is (at least) as normative as the compression strength during the
construction stage, where the ring is not supported by the soil.
90
6.11
The snap through problem
The snap through problem is seen as an ULS where the ring is not able to resist the normal force
anymore due to large deformations of the ring itself. To show the snap through case a
hypothetical load case is formulated from which a calculation is made.
The calculation is set up with a uniform compressive loading (0=0.5MPa). In steps the
ovalisation loading 2 increases (2=0.05MPa). As a result the horizontal diameter increases
while the vertical diameter decreases. The ring has 7 segments with the longitudinal joints (BRT
configuration). The first longitudinal joint is positioned at the top of the ring. The ring is
supported by the soil, but due to large deformations the soil support only acts at the sides of the
ring (from 45 to 135 and from 225 to 315 , Figure 65). Due to the ovalisation loading the
internal bending moments increase. The tangential bending moments are limited to the ultimate
capacity of the segments (Mu, physical non-linear behaviour). If the internal tangential bending
moments exceed this value, a local plastic hinge occurs with the tangential bending moment
value of Mu. The calculation is geometrical and physically non-linear, including the non-linear
behaviour of the longitudinal joints. The geometrical data is according to the BRT.
331
29
3 18
42
Mpl
305
Mpl
55
293
67
280
80
268
-2 200
92
Longitudinal
joint
255
10
243
117
230
130
2 18
142
Mpl
205
193
Figure 65. Ring with longitudinal joints and the soil

support, snap through case.
155
167
Figure 66. Deformed shape of the ring due to snap

through.
Figure 67 shows the ovalisation loading 2 as a function of the deformation at the top of the
ring. From the analysis it is clear that snap through occurs at the top of the ring. The first plastic
hinge occurs at the bottom of the ring at the ovalisation loading 2 of 0.2MPa. Still the ring is
able to resist the normal force and is stable. When the active ovalisation loading exceeds
0.6MPa at the same time two plastic hinges occur at the top region of the ring. In between those
two plastic hinges there is the longitudinal joint at the top of the ring. The deformations of the
ring at the top region cause the snap through (Figure 66).
It is obvious that it takes very large deformations to execute the snap through. Still the snap
through is an explosive failure of the ring. The curve in Figure 66 progresses slightly when
suddenly the snap through occurs.
The increase of the loading from the first plastic hinges to the snap through is a factor three. If
the ULS of the ring is defined as the exceedance of the first Mu, the ring is still stable. In this
case the reserve safety is a factor three.
91
O valisation load [% of sig0]
160
140
120
100
Mpl
80
60
40
Mpl
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
u_top [mm]
Figure 67. The ovalisation loading as function of the top deformation of the ring, in the snap through case.
6.12
Conclusions
This chapter deals with load and considerations of the ULS of the lining.
From the loading components it has become clear that the formulation of the soil pressures to
structural loading must be considered carefully. The approach 1 does only consider the vertical
soil pressure at the upper half of the ring. Next the loading is mirrored to the horizontal axis on
the lower half of the ring. This loading case results in much smaller internal forces and
deformations compared to the second and third load case. Omitting the floating component in
approach three results in equal values for the internal forces and radial deformations as approach
2, which involves the floating. The only advantage of approach 2 is the information about the
vertical translations. This might be of minor interest when analysing the lining itself.
The comparison of the load cases did only involve radial components. This is done on behalf of
the stiffness development of the injected material around the lining due to the building process.
An additional load case, the so-called uplift loading case is presented to invoke the
consequences of poor soil support that might occur during the construction stage. The analyses
of the FEM calculations of the grout have resulted in the uplift loading case, which is a load
model that can easily be used in the lining analyses.
It has shown that analyses with full soil support do not satisfy the applied lining thickness,
observed in practice. Actually the application of a thicker lining is of poor influence on the
safety and the economical costs of the lining according to the analysis with full soil support. The
uplift loading case shows that the soil support is of major influence on the safety of the lining
and that therefore the tail gap injection material and the pressure should be considered very
carefully. Next, local high-pressure spots due to injections have a very negative influence on the
internal forces of the lining.
The structural analysis of the lining includes the question what the actual ULS of the lining
means in relation to the acting forces. Geometrically and physically linear and non-linear
analyses have shown that the geotechnical structure of the lining in the soil requires an
92
alternative approach of the ULS. The ULS is not reached by the exceedance of the tangential
bending capacity of the lining, but more by exceedance of the normal force capacity of the
lining. Two failure mechanisms are appended: local buckling and snap through. These
mechanisms should also be checked when analysing the structure for the ULS.
93
Comparison of full-scale tests with analytical solutions
Figure 68. Artist impression and a photograph of the full-scale test facility at the Delft University of Technology.
From subsurface measurements at the SHT and complex 3D FEM models it was concluded that
the assembly of the lining of shield driven tunnels could result in internal forces which are not
predicted with models in the present literature. Based on the subsurface measurements and the
FEM calculations, hypotheses were drawn to the lining behaviour during construction. The
hypotheses are validated by an extension of the subsurface monitoring in other projects (e.g.
BRT) and in the full-scale laboratory tests [3]. The test results also support the validation of the
complex 3D FEM models.
The test program in the full-scale test facility involves several categories of tests:
The load at once tests, as a reference to models representing the serviceability stage.
The sequential loading, to understand the sequential loading during the assembly.
The geometrical disturbances like enforced placement of the keystone and irregular
segmental supports.
Especially the load at once tests is useful to verify the behaviour of the analytical models of
chapter 4. In [2] results are presented from the full-scale test on a three rings lining. In this
chapter a comparison is made between the formulated analytical solutions of the coupled ring
system of chapter 4 and the results of the full-scale tests.
7.1
Geometry
The full-scale test facility has three vertical oriented rings with varying positions of the
longitudinal joints (Figure 69). The middle ring (called ring 1) has the first longitudinal joint at
position i=0.5. The top and bottom ring (called ring 2) have the first longitudinal joint at
position i=0. The analytical model of chapter 4 implements two rings with a half ring width. In
Figure 69 it is marked that the upper half of the middle ring (ring 1) and the lower half of the top
ring (ring 2) are implemented in the analytical solutions.
The specimen in the test involves three actual rings from the construction site of the BRT. As a
consequence the used rings also have the keystones. These keystones are neglected in the
94
analytical solutions. The keystone in ring 2 is positioned at i=5.5. In ring 1 the keystone is
situated at the position i=6.5.
Location first 1e longitudinal joint ring 2
0.5
6.5
Location 1e longitudinal joint ring 1

6
5.5
1.5
Ring 2
2 times half a ring

in model
2
Ring 1
4.5
2.5
3
4
3.5
Figure 69. Locations of longitudinal joints in geometry and the marked area of the two rings, which are involved in
the analytical solutions.
The specimen is loaded in radial and axial direction. Since the analytical solution involves the
axial forces indirectly by the coupling friction, the axial forces are not directly used as input in
the analytical solution. The radial loading is a composition of a uniform pressure 0 and an
ovalisation loading 2. The geometrical data and the maximum radial pressures are presented in
Table 14.
Table 14. Geometrical and loading data of the full-scale test, that is used in the comparison with the analytical
solution.
7.2
system radius of the lining

thickness of segments
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete
Modulus of Elasticity of soil
Contact length longitudinal joint
Analysed width of ring
Ovalisation loading
Compression loading
Coupling stiffness
r
d
Ec
Es
lt
b
2
0
kv
4525mm
400mm
40000Mpa
0 (no direct soil support)
170mm
750mm
0.0185Mpa
0.4295Mpa
1*105N/mm
Loading at once
7.2.1 Deformations due to ovalisation

The first step is to calculate a system of coupled rings with the analytical approach (chapter 4).
The system matrix [S] makes use of the rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints (cri). In this
analysis initially all cri are equal and determined by:
95
bl t2 E c 750 *170 2 * 40000

=
= 7.225 * 1010 Nmm / rad
12
12
Furthermore the constant B is:
B' ' = k v r = 1*10 5 * 4525 = 4.525 *108 N
Filling in the systems stiffness matrix results in matrix [S]:
3.55 2.83 1.11 0.13
- 2.01 1.00 0.00 0.00
[S ] =
- 2.60 - 2.21 1.00 0.00
- 2.69 - 3.97 - 2.21 1.00

c ri =
The loading vector {f} also makes use of the rotational stiffness cri. The constant A is:
A' = 2 br 2 = 0.0185 * 750 * 4525 2 = 2.84 *10 8 Nmm
The loading vector is:
0.68
- 1.27
{f}=
0.67
0.63
The system of equations [S]{u}={f} is solved with linear algebra techniques.
The solution of the system is the displacement difference of the rings, the vector {u}:
0.48
- 0.32
{u} =
mm
- 0.13
0.35
From {u} the results are extracted as shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Results from the analytical solution.
i
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
ui[mm]
0.48
-0.32
-0.13
0.35
-0.35
0.13
0.32
-0.48
Pi=kvui[kN]
48
-32
-13
35
-35
13
32
-48
i[rad]
7.60E-04
4.67E-04
-1.43E-04
-7.84E-04
-7.84E-04
-1.43E-04
4.67E-04
7.60E-04
The top and side deformations of the rings are determined from the rotations in the longitudinal
joints.
96
ring 1 (middle ring)

Based on the theory in chapter 4 it is found that the displacement of point B (the bottom of ring
1), when the top is held, is:
u yB = rs i (1 sin i )
(45)
Solving this equation results in Table 16.

Table 16. Displacements.
282.9
334.3
25.7
77.1
i
5.5 (1.5)
6.5 (0.5)
0.5
1.5
i
-7.84E-04
4.67E-04
4.67E-04
-7.84E-04
Sum
(1-sin)rs
-7.00
3.03
1.20
-0.09
uyB= -2.87mm
From uyB the back rotation A is calculated:

u yB
2.87
A =
=
= 3.17 * 10 4 rad
2rs 2 * 4525
The absolute top displacement due to the rotations in the longitudinal joints is:
0
utop = A rs rs i sin i
Solving this equation results in Table 17.

Table 17. Top displacement.
i
-7.84E-04
4.67E-04
Sum
= 3.17 * 10 4 * 4525 2.54 = 1.11mm
i
5.5 (1.5)
6.5 (0.5)
u top
282.9
334.3
(sin)rs
3.46
-0.92
2.54
For the side of the ring the same approach is used. Based on chapter 4 for uxB (the side of the
ring) is calculated, when the left side is held:
u xB = rs i (1 + cos i )
0
i
0.5
1.5
2.5
25.7
77.1
128.6
i
4.67E-04
-7.84E-04
-1.43E-04
Sum
(1+cos)rs
4.01
-4.34
-0.24
uxB =-0.57mm
0.57
= 6.3 *10 5 rad
2 * 4525
The absolute side displacement due to the rotations in the longitudinal joints is:
A =
97
u side = A rs + rs i cos i
0
25.7
77.1
i
4.67E-04
-7.84E-04
Sum
= 6.3 *10 5 * 4525 + 1.11 = 1.40mm
i
0.5
1.5
u side
(cos)rs
1.90
-0.79
1.11mm
At this point all rotations in the longitudinal joints and the absolute top and side displacements
due to the rotations in the longitudinal joints of ring 1 are known. Based on chapter 4, the field
of displacements is calculated. Because the rings and loading are symmetrical to the vertical
axis, only the area 0 to 180 is considered.
It is known that due to the ovalisation loading 2, the total radial deformations are the sum of the
deformations due to rotations in the longitudinal joints and the deformations due to the bending
of the segments. The deformations due to rotations at an arbitrary angle, are calculated by (see
also [2]):
u LJ , = rs
i 0
sin( i ) cos u y 0 sin u x 0
u y 0 = u top = 1.11mm
u x 0 = u ( =90;uyo =0;ux 0=0) u side = 1.11 1.40 = 0.29mm
To determine u=90;uy0=0;ux0=0 the equation uLJ, is primary calculated with uy0=0 and ux0=0
(second column, Table 18). Next u=90;uy0=0;ux0=0 is corrected with uy0 and ux0 (third column,
Table 18), which results in the total field of deformations due to the rotations in the longitudinal
joints
The radial deformations due to the bending of segments is calculated by the equation:
4 r4
2 cos(2 )
u EI , =
3 Eb d 3
The total radial deformations follows from:
u tot , = u LJ , + u EI ,
The result of these equations are found in Table 18.
The results from Table 18 are graphically presented in Figure 70, together with the measured
radial displacements from the full-scale test. An additional line is presented with the results of a
frame analysis. The shown radial deformation is a result only of the ovalisation load 2 (2 =
0.0185MPa, uniform compression is omitted). It is obvious that the results of the radial
deformations agree very well.
98
Table 18. Results depicted on radial deformations of the middle ring (ring 1) according to the analytical solution.
[rad]
0.0
12.9
25.7
38.6
51.4
64.3
77.1
90.0
102.9
115.7
128.6
141.4
154.3
167.1
180.0
ulv,
uy0=0;ux0=0
[mm]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.92
1.32
1.65
1.11
0.52
-0.10
-0.71
-1.44
-2.09
-2.63
-3.05
uLV,
uEI,
utot,
[mm]
-1.11
-1.02
-0.87
-0.22
0.45
1.09
1.68
1.40
1.04
0.63
0.20
-0.40
-0.97
-1.49
-1.94
[mm]
-4.04
-3.64
-2.52
-0.90
0.90
2.52
3.64
4.04
3.64
2.52
0.90
-0.90
-2.52
-3.64
-4.04
[mm]
-5.15
-4.66
-3.39
-1.12
1.35
3.61
5.32
5.44
4.68
3.15
1.10
-1.29
-3.49
-5.13
-5.98
Table 19. Results for radial deformations of the top ring (ring 2) according to the analytical solution.
[rad]
0.0
12.9
25.7
38.6
51.4
64.3
77.1
90.0
102.9
115.7
128.6
141.4
154.3
167.1
180.0
ulv,
uy0=0;uxo=0
[mm]
0.00
0.77
1.49
2.15
2.69
2.96
3.07
3.04
2.85
1.73
0.52
-0.71
-1.91
-2.54
-3.05
uLV,
uEI,
utot,
[mm]
-1.58
-1.14
-0.64
-0.11
0.42
0.79
1.12
1.40
1.60
0.93
0.22
-0.50
-1.20
-1.37
-1.47
[mm]
-4.04
-3.64
-2.52
-0.90
0.90
2.52
3.64
4.04
3.64
2.52
0.90
-0.90
-2.52
-3.64
-4.04
[mm]
-5.62
-4.78
-3.16
-1.01
1.32
3.31
4.76
5.44
5.24
3.45
1.12
-1.40
-3.72
-5.01
-5.51
99
8
6
Analytical
Solution
4
2
0
-2 0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
Full scale test

ring 1
Frame analysis
-4
-6
-8
phi [degrees]
Figure 70. Comparison between the field of radial displacements for the middle ring (ring 1) calculated with the
analytical solution and the measured displacements in the full-scale test. An additional line is presented with the
displacements from a frame analysis.
ring 2 (bottom and top ring)

The same approach as in ring 1 is used to calculate the deformations of the top ring (ring
2). The calculation is summarised in the following results:
The absolute top displacement of ring 2 is utop=-1.58mm.
The relative right side displacement, when the left side is held is 3.04mm.
The absolute side displacement of ring 2 is uside=1.39mm.
The correction factor uy0=-utop=1.58mm.
The correction factor ux0=3.04-1.39=1.65mm.
The results of the analytical solution for the radial displacements are given in
Table 19. The comparison of the calculated radial deformations and the measured values is
presented in the graph in Figure 71.
8
Analytical
solution
4
2
Full scale test top ring
0
-2 0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
Full scale test bottom ring
-4
-6
-8
Phi [degrees]
Figure 71. Comparison between the field of radial displacements for the top ring (ring 2) calculated with the
analytical solution and the measured displacements in the full-scale test. An additional line is presented with the
measured radial displacements for the bottom ring.
100
Figure 71 shows the radial deformations of the top ring due to the analytical solution. Also the
measured values from the full-scale test are presented, for the top ring as well for the bottom
ring. Both the top and the bottom ring have longitudinal joints at similar positions. As the figure
shows, the calculated values and the measured values agree very well. Both top and bottom ring
in the full-scale test represent equal radial deformations.
7.2.2 Longitudinal joints
In paragraph 7.2.1 an analytical approach is given to make a comparison for the radial
deformations between the analytical solution and the measured data of the full-scale test. The
comparison of the deformations gives a satisfying parallel between the analytical solution and
the measured data. It has to be verified that the analytical solution is based on the longitudinal
joint rotational stiffness constant cri that agrees with the theoretical values (chapter 5). In the
analytical solution cri=7.225*1010Nmm/rad for all longitudinal joints is used. From the analytical
solution the following internal rotations in the longitudinal joints are derived:
The turning point of the constant rotational stiffness (stage I in chapter 5) to the reduced
rotational stiffness (stage II) is defined by the equation:
Nl
M t
6
For N is calculated:
N = 0 rb = 0.4295 * 4525 * 750 = 1457 kN
The turning point is reached when the then occurring tangential bending moments exceed the
following
Table 20. Results from the analytical solution for ring 2.
i
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
limit:
0.0
25.7
51.4
77.1
102.9
128.6
154.3
180.0
ui[mm]
0.48
-0.32
-0.13
0.35
-0.35
0.13
0.32
-0.48
Fk=kvui[kN]
48
-32
-13
35
-35
13
32
-48
i[rad]
7.60E-04
4.67E-04
-1.43E-04
-7.84E-04
-7.84E-04
-1.43E-04
4.67E-04
7.60E-04
cri Mi[kNm]
7.225*1010
55
7.225*1010
34
7.225*1010
-10
7.225*1010
-57
7.225*1010
-57
7.225*1010
-10
7.225*1010
34
7.225*1010
55
Nlv 1457 *10 3 *170

=
= 41kNm
6
6
It is concluded that at i=0, 1.5, 2 and 3.5 the assumed rotational stiffness has been too stiff. As a
consequence the analytical solution has to be recalculated with adapted rotational stiffness
constants. Based on Table 20 new values for the rotational stiffness are estimated and the
solutions are recalculated. Again the rotational stiffness is verified, which results in a smaller
discrepancy between the calculated and the newly assumed rotational stiffness. By iteration of
the calculations, finally rotational stiffness constants are used which agree to the theoretical
values (Table 21).
M
101
Table 21. Results from analytical solution after iteration for ring 2.
0.0
25.7
51.4
77.1
102.9
128.6
154.3
180.0
i
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
ui[mm]
0.50
-0.31
-0.13
0.35
-0.35
0.13
0.31
-0.50
Fk=kvui[kN]
50
-31
-13
35
-35
13
31
-50
i[rad]
7.76E-04
4.74E-04
-1.44E-04
-8.62E-04
-8.62E-04
-1.44E-04
4.74E-04
7.76E-04
cri Mi[kNm]
6.819E+10
53
7.225E+10
34
7.225E+10
-10
6.578E+10
-57
6.578E+10
-57
7.225E+10
-10
7.225E+10
34
6.819E+10
53
8
6
Analytical
Solution
4
2
0
-2 0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
Full scale test

ring 1
Frame analysis
-4
-6
-8
phi [degrees]
Figure 72. Comparison of the radial deformations of the middle ring (ring 1), with adapted rotational stiffness in the
longitudinal joints.
8
Analytical
solution
4
2
Full scale test top ring
0
-2 0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
Full scale test bottom ring
-4
-6
-8
Phi [degrees]
Figure 73. Comparison of the radial deformations of the middle ring (ring 1), with adapted rotational stiffness in the
102
Bending Moment [kNm]
150
100
Theoretical
50
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.000
-50
0.002
0.004
0.006
Analytical
approach full
scale test
-100
-150
Phi [rad]
Figure 74. Comparing the M-phi relation of the adapted rotational stiffness in the analytical solution and required
values from the theory.
The comparison of the results in Table 20 and Table 21 shows that in this case the iteration was
not quite influencing the results. The rotational stiffness constants only decreased by 9% or 5%
in several longitudinal joints. The influence on the tangential bending moments in the
longitudinal joints is small. For the sake of completeness the two graphs for the radial
displacements are presented again, but now with adapted rotational stiffness values in the
analytical solution.
Figure 74 shows the tangential bending moments as a function of the rotation angle in the
longitudinal joints. The graph line is the theoretical relation from chapter 5 and the dots are the
occurring relation in the longitudinal joints in the recalculation of the full-scale test with the
analytical solution. The figure shows that the assumed rotational stiffness in the longitudinal
joints in the analytical solutions agrees with the theoretical values.
7.2.3 Tangential stresses in segments
The analytical solutions also give the results for the tangential bending moments in the rings.
The tangential bending moments at the positions of the longitudinal joints are given in Table 22.
In-between the known bending moments from Table 22 the tangential bending moments are
calculated by interpolation. As a results the total field of tangential bending moments is
determined for ring 1 and 2. The tangential stresses due to the tangential bending moments are
calculated by:
6M
M = 2
bd
From the full-scale tests the tangential bending stresses are known because strains have been
measured. In Figure 75 and Figure 76 the tangential bending stresses are given for the analytical
solution, the measurements of the full-scale test and results from 3D FEM calculations. The
direct influence of axial forces and lateral contraction has been eliminated [4].
103
Table 22. The tangential bending moments at the positions of the longitudinal joints, according to the analytical
solution.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0.0
25.7
51.4
77.1
102.9
128.6
154.3
180.0
Fk
[kN]
48
-32
-13
35
-35
13
32
-48
M ring 1
[kNm]
53
85
-10
-114
-57
-32
33
136
M ring 2
[kNm]
136
33
-32
-57
-114
-10
85
53
Tangential bending stresses [MPa]
8.00
6.00
4.00
Analytical
Solution Ring 1
2.00
0.00
-2.00
3D FEM
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
Full scale test
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
phi [degrees]
Figure 75. The tangential bending stresses due to the analytical solution, the measurements and the 3D FEM
Solution. The stresses are for the middle ring (ring 1) at the outside of the segments.
Tangential bending stresses [MPa]
8.00
6.00
4.00
Analytical
Solution Ring 2
2.00
3D FEM
0.00
-2.00
60
120
180
240
300
360
Full Scale Test
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
Phi [degrees]
Figure 76. The tangential bending stresses due to the analytical solution, the measurements and the 3D FEM
Solution. The stresses are for the top ring (ring 2) at the outside of the segments.
104
From the observation of Figure 75 and Figure 76 it is concluded that the results of the analytical
solution suit well with both the 3D FEM solution and the measurements. It is mentioned that the
comparison only took place for values at the centre lines of the segments (i.e. not near the lateral
joints) and that the tangential stress values near the longitudinal joints are not as easy to estimate
as supposed. Measurements near the joints show a high disturbance due to boundary effects of
concrete. These effects are also known from FEM solutions. These disturbances will be
discussed later.
7.3
Sequential loading and the migration of forces
Ring 2
Ring 2
2 times half a ring
in model
Ring 1
2 times half a ring

in model
Ring 1
II
Loading the middle and bottom ring in radial

direction. The top ring is not loaded in radial
direction. Loading the three rings in axial
direction.
Additional loading of the top ring in

radial direction.
Figure 77. The loading order in the full-scale test due to the case of the sequential loading.
Figure 77 shows the sequential order of loading of the three rings in the laboratory test. In the
first instance the lower two rings (including ring 1) are loaded in radial direction with uniform
and ovalisation loading. Therefore these two rings will show a radial deformation. In the second
instance the top ring (ring 2) is radially loaded with the uniform and ovalisation loading. The
axial forces cause ring interaction of the top ring (ring 2) with the lower two rings (including
ring 1). The radial deformation of the top ring due to the direct loading of this ring is called
direct deformation. The radial deformation of the middle ring due to the loading of the top ring
is called additional deformation. In the same terms direct tangential stresses and additional
tangential stresses are used.
The comparison of the analytical solutions with these measurements of the sequential loading in
the full-scale test case can not be done directly. This paragraph is just to illustrate the influence
of the sequential loading. In the analytical solution both rings 1 and 2 are loaded at the same
time. Therefore the sequential loading is not applied directly. To estimate the occurrence of
displacements and the tangential stresses there is an assumption to be made: the contribution of
the ovalisation loading of ring 2 in the deformations and tangential stresses in ring 2 is just half
(50%) of the direct loading in the sequential load system. This means in Figure 77 that when the
top ring (ring 2) is loaded with the ovalisation loading, while the lower and middle ring (ring 1)
are already loaded, half of the acting forces on the top ring (ring 2) is transmitted through lateral
interaction to the middle ring (ring 1). Therefore the analytical solution is made with 50% of the
ovalisation loading. The transmission of forces through the lateral joints is only possible when
105
there is a deformation difference between the rings. As a consequence it is assumed that normal
forces are not migrating through the lateral joint. These assumptions will be tuned when
interpreting the deformations and the tangential stresses.
The results of the analytical solution are the internal forces and the radial deformations. The
radial deformations of the top ring (ring 2) are interpreted as the direct radial deformations due
to the radial loading of the top ring (ring 2). These radial deformations involve deformations due
to the uniform compression. The radial deformations of the middle ring (ring 1) are interpreted
as the additional radial deformations due to the loading of ring 2. These radial deformations do
not involve the uniform compression since normal forces are assumed not to migrate between
the rings. The same logic is applied to the tangential stresses. The calculated tangential stresses
in the top ring (ring 2) are interpreted as the direct tangential stresses and include the normal
stresses. The tangential stresses in the middle ring (ring 1) are interpreted as additional stresses,
but they do not involve the normal stresses.
The 3D FEM analysis involves the full sequential loading cycles of the full-scale test. More
explanation is found in [2], [17].
The frame analysis involves two rings with half the segmental width (ring 1 and 2). Between the
two rings there are couplings. In this calculation only the top ring (ring 2) is loaded with the
uniform and ovalisation loading. The longitudinal joints in the middle ring act as they include a
normal force from the loading of the middle ring (ring 1), but in the ring itself the normal forces
are zero due to uniform and ovalisation loading of the middle ring (ring 1). The results of the
calculation are the radial deformations and the internal forces. The radial deformations of the top
ring are the direct radial deformations, the tangential stresses in the top ring are the direct
tangential stresses. The radial deformations of the middle ring (ring 1) are the additional radial
deformations. The tangential stresses in the middle ring (ring 1) are the additional tangential
stresses. The advantage of this approach is that it is observed that still a part of the uniform
loading from the top ring is migrating through the lateral joints to the middle ring.
7.4
Deformations and tangential stresses due to sequential loading. Migration of the

acting forces
Figure 78 shows the direct radial deformations for three models and the measurements of the
full-scale test. It is obvious that the radial deformations are smaller compared to the calculations
and tests where the rings are all loaded at once. This means that the adjoining rings actually
cooperate. In the analytical solution it is assumed that, because of the force migration, only 50%
of the active forces cause the actual direct deformation of the ring. Further analysis has shown
that when only 40% remains in the direct deformations the measured values agree very well
(Figure 78 and Figure 80 show the analytical solution with 40% active loading). Even the
additional radial deformations (Figure 79) show a good agreement when the ovalisation loading
in the analytical solution is only 40% of the total ovalisation pressure.
In total, this means that when the top ring is loaded with 100% ovalisation loading, 40% is
remaining in the top ring, and 60% is migrating to the middle and bottom ring. Of this 60% a
part of 40% remains in the middle ring, while 20% migrates to the bottom ring (Figure 79). This
distribution is also found from the data of the 3D FEM analysis, although the direct and
additional radial deformations predicted by the 3D FEM analysis are smaller than the measured
106
values. From an analysis of the radial deformations in the 3D FEM analysis, due to the radial
loading of the top ring, it appears that the increment of the average radial deformations of the
middle ring is 1.04 to the increment of the radial deformations of the top ring. The increment of
the average radial deformations of the bottom ring is 0.44 to the increment of the radial
deformations of the top ring. From these values the distribution of the acting force is determined
(Table 23 and Figure 79).
4
Analytical solution
ring 1 without
normal
compression
Ansys Solution
3
2
1
0
-1
60
120
180
240
300
LDesign
360
-2
Full Scale Test
-3
-4
Phi [degrees]
Figure 78. Direct radial deformations in ring 2 due to the radial loading of ring 2. Deformations due to the analytical
solution, 3D FEM solution (ANSYS), the frame analysis (LDesign) and the measurements of the top ring in the fullscale test.
Table 23. Determination of the distribution of the acting force on the top ring (ring 2) over the three rings in the
full-scale laboratory test. The data is obtained from the 3D FEM analysis [17].
Top ring (ring 2)

Middle ring (ring 1)
Bottom ring
Total
Average increment of
radial deformation
compared to the top ring
(ring 2)
1
1.04
0.44
2.48
Top ring: 40% of ovalisation load
Percentage of total
40%
42%
18%
100%
100%
ovalisation
loading
Middle ring: 40% of ovalisation load

Bottom ring: 20% of ovalisation load
Figure 79. Distribution of the sequential ovalisation loading on the top ring through migration in the lateral joints to
the middle and bottom ring.
107
Since the frame analysis only involves ring 1 and 2, the acting ovalisation loading is 80% of the
actual ovalisation loading in the full-scale test (Figure 78 and Figure 80 show the results of the
frame analysis with 80% active loading only on ring 2). The results of the frame analysis also
agree very well with the measured values and confirm the migration hypotheses that 40%
remains in the directly loaded ring, while 60% migrates to the adjoining rings.
4
Analytical solution
ring 2 including
normal compression
3
2
Ansys Solution
1
0
-1
60
120
180
240
300
360
-2
LDesign
Full Scale Test
-3
-4
Phi [degrees]
Figure 80. Additional radial deformations in ring 1 due to the radial loading of ring 2. Deformations due to the
analytical solution, 3D FEM solution (ANSYS), the frame analysis (LDesign) and the measurements of the middle
ring in the full-scale test.
4
Ansys solution
Tg stress [MPa]
2
Full Scale Test
0
0
60
120
180
-2
240
300
360
LDesign
-4
Analytical Solution
Ring 2 with
normal stresses
-6
-8
Phi [degrees]
Figure 81. Direct tangential stresses in ring 2 due to the radial loading of ring 2. Tangential stresses due to the
analytical solution, 3D FEM solution (ANSYS), the frame analysis (LDesign) and the measurements of the top ring
in the full-scale test.
Figure 81 shows the direct tangential stresses in the top ring (ring 2). Figure 82 shows the
additional tangential stresses due to the loading of the adjoining ring. Both figures show that the
model results have equal tendencies. The measurement values in general show also equal
tendencies, although measurement values near longitudinal joints are very small. This is a result
of the force introduction in the longitudinal joints. The measurement strain gauges are glued on
108
the concrete surface, while the strains are not fully developed at the concrete surface yet. This
effect is predicted with the 3D FEM model, while the analytical solution and the frame analysis
do not involve this local influence.
The tangential stresses due to the analytical solution are a result of the 40% ovalisation loading
on both rings. The tangential stresses due to the frame analysis are a result of the 80% loading
on the top ring (ring 2) only. It is obvious that the migration hypothesis is supported by the
results presented in the graphs of the direct and additional radial deformations and tangential
stresses.
It is clearly observed that the additional tangential stresses do not involve the uniform
compressive force, while the direct tangential stresses do involve the uniform compression.
4
Ansys Solution
2
Tg Stress [MPa]
Full Scale Test

0
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-2
LDesign
-4
-6
-8
Phi [degrees]
Analytical
Solution Ring 1
without normal
stresses
Figure 82. Additional tangential stresses in ring 1 due to the radial loading of ring 2. Tangential stresses due to the
analytical solution, 3D FEM solution (ANSYS), the frame analysis (LDesign) and the measurements of the middle
ring in the full-scale test.
7.5
The direction of coupling forces due to sequential loading
Figure 83 is an illustration of the occurrence of the coupling force due to deformation difference
in a coupled ring solution. In this example the radial deformations of ring 1 are larger than the
radial deformations of ring 2, at the position of the coupling. Therefore a coupling force occurs,
with the presented direction. Due to assumed symmetry the models only involve two times half
a ring width (b/2). As a consequence the coupling forces on both sides of the segment in ring 1
(and ring 2) are directed in the same direction.
Figure 84 is an illustration of the development of the coupling forces due to the sequential
loading. In the columns the sequential erection of the ring followed by the new acting radial
loading is shown. In the rows the consequences for the radial deformations and internal forces is
shown. For example: when ring 4 is erected and loaded, 40% of the loading 4 is causing radial
deformations in ring 4, 40% of the loading 4 is indirectly causing radial deformations in ring 3
and 20% of the loading 4 is indirectly causing radial deformations in ring 2. Between the
adjoining rings 4 and 3 the interaction occurs by the coupling forces (P4) and between the
adjoining ring 3 and 2 the interaction occurs by the smaller coupling forces (P4). Ring 1 and 2
109
are influenced by the starting conditions, but the situation of ring 3 represents the repeating total
development of the radial deformations and the internal forces. The radial deformations of ring n
are for 40% caused by the loading of ring n (n), for 40% by the next ring (n+1) and for 20% by
the next following ring (n+2). The coupling forces on ring n are the addition of the effects of the
loading of ring n to n+2. The figure shows clearly that the coupling forces have a reverse
direction at both sides of the segment. This is a main distinction with the coupling forces in
Figure 83.
Ring 2
Ring 1
P0
P0
A-A
A-A
P0
Ring 2
Ring 1
b/2
b/2
A-A
Figure 83. Direction of the coupling forces when the loading in all the rings is acting at the same time.
Ring 0
Ring 1
Ring 2
Ring 4
Ring 3
0
Loading on
Ring 0
Not present
100% 0
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
1
Loading on
Ring 1
+50% 1
P1
50% 1
+P2
Loading on
Ring 2
+20% 2
+40% 2
P2
40% 2
3
+P3
Loading on
Ring 3
+20% 3
+40% 3
Not present
P3
40% 3
4
+P4
Loading on
Ring 4
+20% 4
+40% 4
P4
40% 4
40%n+40% n+1+20%n+2
Total
Pn+Pn+1
Pn+1+Pn+2
Figure 84. The development of the value and direction of the coupling forces due to sequential loading.
110
Due to the sequential loading it is expected that the coupling forces at both sides of the segments
have equal values, but in the reverse direction. This results in a complex factor for modelling. In
the so-called beam models, the coupling forces are transposed to the centre line of the ring.
Therefore the result of the sum of the coupling forces on a segment is zero. But observing the
segment in Figure 84 it turns out that the coupling forces must penetrate the segment to find the
equilibrium. The integrated tangential bending moments over the segmental width will not show
any disturbances by the coupling forces, while local stresses are strongly influenced (Figure 85).
-30
-2
-4
P
-6
0
segment
P
Figure 85. Illustration of the stress distribution due to reverse direction coupling forces on a segment.
7.6
Conclusions
In this chapter a comparison is made between the analytical solutions from chapter 4 and the
results of the full-scale test at the Delft University of Technology. Two main cases are
considered: the all in one test and the sequential loading test. In the all in one test the total
system of three rings is loaded in radial and axial direction at once. In the sequential load case in
the first instance only two of the three rings are loaded in radial direction. In the second instance
the third ring is loaded in radial direction in the presence of the axial forces.
The results of the analytical solution and the loading at once case have shown very good
agreement for the radial deformations and the tangential stresses. The analytical solution of
chapter 4 is fully confirmed by the results from the laboratory test in this case. The comparison
with the sequential loading case involves some implications. It is concluded that the loading of a
ring results in migration of the acting forces when ring interaction can occur. In the case of the
full-scale test about 60% of the acting loading is migrating to adjoining rings. The direct
adjoined ring dissipates 40% of the acting loading, while the next adjoining ring dissipates 20%.
These values are confirmed by the 3D FEM analysis. Further it appeared that only ovalisation
loading migrates through the lateral joints. The uniform pressure does not migrate. As a
consequence the loading in the analytical model is adapted to this migration hypothesis.
With the special consideration around the migration of acting forces, the results of the sequential
loading in the full-scale testing can be compared. The results of the various model types, like
111
analytical solution, frame analysis and 3D FEM analysis, show a good agreement with the
measured values in the full-scale test.
The analysis has shown that the subsequent loading influences the deformations and the internal
forces in the adjoining rings. The lateral joint interaction capacity is very important from this
point of view. It turned out that due to the sequential loading the integrated forces in a ring are
not influenced by the coupling forces. Locally the coupling forces will result in highly disturbed
stress spots.
112
113
Measurements and calculations of assembling stresses at the BRT and

the SHT
8.1
Introduction
This chapter deals with a comparison between the results of the measurements at the BRT and
the SHT and calculations with the frame analysis and the analytical solutions of chapter 4. In the
following paragraphs most of the attention is given to the measurements at the BRT. Finally a
brief comparison is made with the measurement data of the SHT in 8.9.
Measurements at a segmented ring have been carried out at the BRT. The measurements
involved strain measurements in tangential and axial directions (see also appendix A). The
measurement devices are connected to the reinforcement of the segments before the concrete
was added in the mould. The measurements started before the segments were actually erected
within the TBM. Therefore the measurement data involves all the strain developments from the
erection to the sequential process of axial loading and excavation. The measured strains are
converted to stresses by multiplication with the stiffness modulus, with consideration of the
lateral contraction (8.2). An analysis is carried out how to cope with the influence of the
tangential, the axial and the radial components.
The latest measurement data at the BRT that is analysed in this chapter is just 5 days after the
ring was erected. Nevertheless the influence of concrete creep is discussed in 8.8.
t=7500
t=750
t=350
TBM
t=100
The tangential stresses are calculated from the measured strains. On one location (one rotation
angle) at the circumference of the ring more than one measurement can be available. These
different measurement values are recalculated to average values as being valid for this angle for
the whole section width (1.5m) of the segment. The stresses are interpreted as uniformly
distributed over the segmental width. The bending strains are corrected because measurement
devices were not situated at the surface of the concrete (the concrete cover to the measurement
devices is assumed to be 50mm, see also appendix A).
Figure 86. Positions of the equipped ring at the analysed time steps.
The following time steps are analysed in this chapter (Figure 86):
t=100 (1 hour, 40 minutes): The equipped ring 823 is fully assembled and inside the TBM.
The TBM is not drilling, so the axial jack forces are static.
t=350 (5 hours, 50 minutes): The next ring 824 is fully assembled and inside the TBM.
The equipped ring 823 is now halfway through the TBM and grout/ground. The TBM is
not drilling, so the axial jack forces are static.
114
-
t=750 (12 hour, 30 minutes): The next ring 825 is fully assembled and inside the TBM.
The equipped ring 823 is now fully in the grout/ground. The TBM is not drilling, so the
axial jack forces are static.
t=7500 (5 days, 5 hours): Time step where measurements seem to be complete and static.
The TBM has been drilled several rings in advance. The TBM is not drilling, so the axial
jack forces are static.
To compare the measurements with the calculations the results of the frame analysis and the
analytical solution described in chapter 4 are used. In these calculations the stresses do not
directly involve the influence of the axial jack forces in combination with the lateral contraction.
Therefore the influences of the axial jack forces are indirectly added.
Key segment
1000kN
1000kN
1000kN
1000kN
1100kN
1100kN
1100kN
1100kN
1250kN
1250kN
1250kN
1250kN
2250kN
2250kN
Figure 87. The axial jack forces at the BRT, which are assumed in the calculations.
In [14] an overview is given of the axial forces that act on the ring just after it has been erected
(Figure 87). The results of the calculations with the models are the tangential stresses without
involvement of the lateral contraction and the axial forces. The axial forces are taken into
account by adding the tangential influence to these results of the calculations. To determine the
influence of the axial force on the tangential stresses an analysis is carried out of a segment. The
segment is analysed with two typical boundary conditions:
1.
The locked longitudinal joints.
2.
The free longitudinal joints.
0.8
0.6
S_tg [MPa]
0.4
0.2
At this line the tangential stresses are

presented
0
-0.2 0
10
20
30
40
50
-0.4
-0.6
locked
free
-0.8
phi [degrees]
Figure 88. The tangential stresses due to the axial forces of F=1000kN for the boundary conditions of free and
locked longitudinal joints.
115
The boundary condition with the locked longitudinal joints is assumed to occur when radial
pressures due to the surroundings act on the segment when the ring is out of the TBM. The
boundary condition with the free longitudinal joints might occur when the ring is in the TBM
and the radial forces are not acting on the ring. It is reminded that in this situation still a locked
condition can occur due to the manual erection of the segments.
In Figure 88 the tangential stresses are shown caused by the axial forces of 1000kN. The values
are determined with a simple 2D FEM calculation. It is obvious that for the locked longitudinal
joints the tangential stresses directly under the forces are equal at the edges of the longitudinal
joints and at the centre of the segment. For the free longitudinal joints these values are different.
From Figure 87 it is clear that the axial forces vary along the lining circumference. As a
consequence the amplitude of the tangential stresses caused by the axial forces vary along the
lining circumference. In Figure 89 the tangential stresses around the ring are shown for both
boundary conditions. Furthermore a comparison is made with the tangential stresses from the
measurements at the BRT at t=100min. It is obvious that the amplitude of the measurements and
the calculated values agree. Nevertheless discrepancies occur. Especially near the key segment
(which is positioned at 347 ). The rotation angle has been defined zero in the top of the ring,
rotating to the right. The view direction is towards the TBM. In chapter 9 and 10 special
attention is given to the phenomena that can occur near the key segment.
For the analyses time steps later than t=100min it is assumed that the longitudinal joints are
locked. In the following paragraph it is explained how the measured strains are converted to
stresses.
2
Stg [MPa] outside
1
Measurement BRT
0
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
locked
-1
free
-2
-3
Phi [degrees]
Figure 89. The tangential stresses due to the influence of the axial forces (for the free and the locked longitudinal
joints) compared to the stresses from the measurements at t=100min, when the equipped ring is in the TBM.
8.2
The conversion of measured strains to stresses
The axial jack forces influence the tangential stresses. The other way around the axial stresses
are influenced by the tangential forces. The implementation of the several components (radial,
axial and tangential) is explained in this paragraph.
116
The stresses in direction xx depend on the strains in direction xx, yy and zz, the lateral
contraction coefficient and the Youngs modulus of the concrete Ec (isotropic material). The
stresses can be calculated by use of Hookes law:
xx
xx
1
1

1 yy
yy =
E

1 zz
zz
In the segment of the lining it is assumed that xx=tg , yy=ax and zz=0 (plane stress, Figure
90). The stress zz is approximately zero due to the assumption that the radial contraction can
freely occur (it is shown that this assumption is valid). This means that the radial deformation
can freely occur without any occurrence of stresses even when there are axial and tangential
stresses and lateral contraction.
Axial
direction
yy=ax
yy=ax
xx=tg
xx=tg
zz=0
zz 0
Tangential
direction
Radial
direction
Figure 90. The directions of the stresses and strains.
The system of equations is now rewritten to:

tg 1 1 tg
=

1 ax
ax E
tg
E 1 tg
=

1 ax
2 )
(
1
ax
with =0.2:
i = (1.042 i + 0.208 j ) Ec
In Figure 91 a segment is analysed with FEM shell elements. The segmental length is 4000mm,
the height is 1500mm, the thickness is 400mm, Ec=40.000MPa, =0.2 and F=2000kN. From
these calculations the above equation is verified. In the middle of the segment (at 2000mm width
and 750mm height) the analysis shows a tangential strain of tg=5.595*10-5, ax=-1.47*10-4,
zz=2.18*10-5. Furthermore the stresses calculated with the FEM analysis are: tg=1.26MPa,
ax=-5.61MPa, zz=0MPa.
The tangential and axial stresses are recalculated by use of the strains in the tangential and the
axial direction:
117
tg = (1.042 tg + 0.208 ax ) Ec = (1.042 * 5.95 *105 + 0.208 * 1.47 *104 ) * 40000 = 1.26MPa
ax = (1.042 ax + 0.208 tg ) Ec = (1.042 * 1.47 *104 + 0.208 * 5.95 *105 ) * 40000 = 5.63MPa
zz = 0 MPa
The stresses calculated with the equation agree very well with the stresses from the FEM
analysis.
A radial pressure acts on the lining when the rings are pushed out of the TBM. This means that
zz is influenced. In the case of the BRT the radial pressure is for example 0.400MPa. From
Hookes law it is determined that the influence on the tangential and axial strain is:
0.2
tg ,ax = zz =
0.4 = 2.10 6
40000
E
In appendix A it is shown that the influence of the radial stresses on the lateral strain directions
is of minor influence. Therefore the radial direction is not only neglected (zz=0) when the
segments are inside the TBM (no radial loading) but also when radial loading is acting on the
lining.
F/2
F/2
(A)
tg-line
Axial strain
Measurement device
Tangential strain
Measurement device
3.00
F = 2000kN
= 0.2
Ec = 40.000Mpa
S_tg [MPa]
2.00
1.00
(B)
0.00
-1.00
1000
2000
-2.00
-3.00
3000
4000
M easurement BRT
3 equal supports
2 supports
Segment holes
[mm]
Figure 91. FEM analysis of tangential normal stresses due to axial jack forces and lateral contraction (A).
Comparison with the average tangential normal stresses (derived from tangential and axial strains) from the
measurements of segment A4 (B).
The tangential stresses in the segments depend on both the tangential and the axial strains (the
radial direction is neglected). In Figure 91(A) five positions of tangential strain measurement
devices and three positions of axial strain measurement devices are presented. This means that at
118
and of the segment length the axial strains are not measured. In Figure 92 a comparison is
made between measured and calculated axial strains. At the measured positions the axial strains
are near the maxima. At the positions of and of the segment length the strain values are
significantly smaller than these maxima. In the conversion of the strains to the stresses it is
assumed that the axial strains at the positions of and of the segmental length are zero. From
Figure 92 the axial strains at and of the segmental length can be obtained: ax0.4*10-4. The
tangential stress due to this axial strain is:
tg = 0.208 ax E c = 0.208 * 0.4 *10 4 * 40000 = 0.33MPa
The stresses at and of the segmental length, calculated from the measured strains, do not
involve the contribution of tangential stresses due to the axial strains. The error due to
neglecting the axial strains in the tangential stresses at these positions is therefore about
0.33MPa.
Figure 91B shows the tangential stresses at the middle (Figure 91, tg-line) of the segment
from the FEM analysis for three different calculations: three local supports (see (A)), two local
supports, (left support eliminated) and a calculation where the handle holes are presented as
physical holes in the segment. The first two calculations do not consider the handle holes. All
three calculations show equal tendencies for the tangential stresses. In the middle of the segment
(at 2000mm segmental width) the calculation without handle holes and with three supports
shows the best fit. At the longitudinal joint sides of the segment, the calculation with the
unequal support fits best in general. The calculation with the handle hole shows more
discrepancies. The observations during the measurements do not provide information about the
supports. A fact is that the segments have handle holes. From the as-built drawings of the
equipped ring it can be noticed that the measurement devices are tried to position away from the
influence of the handle holes. It is explicitly said that the tangential stresses near the border of
the segments are not analysed here. This analysis would show that stresses at the border of the
segments are very much influenced by the support types and boundary conditions of the
Further analysis of the local supports is not done here since the remaining chapter compares
global values and tendencies.
2.E-04
Measured axial strain
Eps_ax [-]
1.E-04
Axial Strain FEM
0.E+00
-1.E-04
1000
2000
3000
4000
-2.E-04
-3.E-04
-4.E-04
l [mm]
Figure 92. Axial strains from FEM and measurements of segment A4.

8.3
119
The normal load case and the equipped ring far from the TBM
In this paragraph a comparison is made between model results and the stresses from the
measurements at t=7500. The calculations with the models are carried out with the normal
loading (see chapter 6) and the indirect influence of the axial forces (the addition of the values
from Figure 89). The calculation results are obtained from the frame analysis (LDesign) and the
analytical solutions in chapter 4. The parameters that are used in the calculations are presented
in Table 24.
Table 24. The parameters for the calculations with the frame analysis and the analytical solution due to the normal
load case (see also chapter 6).
Frame analysis (LDesign)

h = 25.000mm (soil overburden from the
horizontal axis of the ring to the surface)
w = 22.700mm (water table from the
horizontal axis of the ring)
g=18kN/m3 (the specific weight of saturated
soil)
d=16kN/m3 (the specific weight of
unsaturated soil)
w=10kN/m3 (the specific weight of water)
Eoed=50Mpa (the elastic stiffness of the soil)
k0=0.43 (active horizontal soil coefficient)
kv=100.000N/mm (coupling stiffness)
Ec=40.000Mpa (Youngs modulus concrete)
Non reduced top stiffness for ground
support.
The first longitudinal joint is at the
angle of 13 (position of the key
segment, see Figure 87).
Rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints due to stage I and II (see chapter
5) .
Load at once (the rings in the coupled
system are loaded at the same time).
The influence of the axial forces to the
tangential stresses is indirectly
involved by the addition of the values
from Figure 89, locked longitudinal
joints.
Analytical Solution, chapter 4

The active load follows from top and side
(by use of approach three in chapter 6):
top=22.7*18+2.3*16=0.445Mpa
side=(0.445-0.227)*0.43+0.227=0.32Mpa
Eoed=50Mpa
k0=0.43
kv=100.000N/mm
Ec=40.000Mpa (Youngs modulus concrete)
Rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints due to stage I (see chapter 5).
First longitudinal joint at angle phi=0
(symmetrical approach).
Load at once (the rings in the coupled
system are loaded at the same time).
The influence of the axial forces to the
tangential stresses is indirectly
involved by the addition of the values
from Figure 89, locked longitudinal
joints.
2=0.76 (76% of initial loading is not
acting on lining by soil deformation),
following from the theory in chapter 4.
Figure 93 shows the average tangential stresses over the segmental width from the
measurements at t=7500 and the tangential stresses from the calculations with the frame analysis
and the analytical solution, based on the input parameters from Table 24. It is obvious that the
measured and calculated stresses agree well. Tendencies and value amplitudes confirm each
other. It is reminded that the presented measured values are the average values of several
measurement devices over the segmental width to assume that stresses are uniformly distributed
over the segmental width. From this point of view it is concluded that the averages of the
120
measured values can be reproduced with calculations assuming a uniform stress distribution. It
is observed that the tangential stresses at the outside of the segments generally show a somewhat
higher value at the side of the ring (90 and 270). Special attention is given to this area in the
next paragraph.
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
180
240
300
360
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Phi [degrees]
Stg [M Pa] outside
Stg [M Pa] inside
In Table 24 it is mentioned that the analytical solution assumes a symmetrical lining to the
vertical axis. This means that the first longitudinal joint is positioned at the angle of 0. Even
with this assumption the tangential stresses agree with the stresses from the measurements. The
tangential stresses in the figure indicate that the ring deforms to the shape with an increase of the
horizontal diameter and a decrease of the vertical diameter (lying egg).
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Phi [degrees]
180
240
300
360
Frame analysis
M easurement B R T
Analytical solution
Figure 93. Average tangential stresses at the inside and outside of the segments. The stresses are given for the
measurements at t=7500, the frame analysis (LDesign) and the analytical solutions of chapter 4.
Mtg [kNm/0.75m]
150
100
50
0
-50 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-100
-150
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Phi [degrees]
Figure 94. The tangential bending moments from the measurements, the frame analysis and the analytical solution.
Ntg [kN/0.75m]
500
0
-500 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-1000
22
2
-1500
-2000
-2500
Phi [degrees]
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Figure 95. The tangential normal forces from the measurements, the frame analysis and the analytical solution.
Figure 94 shows the tangential bending moments from measurements, the frame analysis and the
analytical solution. Again the tendencies and the amplitudes of the values agree. It is quoted that
the influence of the axial forces to the tangential bending moments does not appear. The
121
tangential bending moments are obtained from the stress differences over the segmental
thickness of 400mm. The influence of the axial forces to the tangential stresses does not result in
a difference of the tangential stresses over the segmental thickness.
Figure 95 shows the tangential normal forces from the measurements, the frame analysis and the
analytical solution. It is observed that the values show a clear influence of the axial forces to the
tangential normal forces. At the bottom of the ring the amplitude of the value of the calculations
and the measurements agree well. There is a discrepancy between the calculations and the
measurements at the top of the ring. The measurements show values much smaller than the
calculations. The uniform loading (e.g. 0) results in the calculations to a more constant value
around the ring circumference. This phenomenon is analysed again in the following paragraph
with the uplift loading case.
Figure 96. The displacement and deformation of the ring in the frame analysis with the normal load case.
From the frame analysis and the analytical solution, some interesting values are extracted to
increase the insight in the appeared behaviour in the equipped ring. Figure 96 shows the
deformation of the rings in the frame analysis. The radial deformations are about 4-5mm and
agree with observed amplitudes in the BRT. The amplitude of the deformations shows also a
parallel with the measured radial deformations in the full-scale test facility at the Delft
University of Technology. The results of these tests show that the longitudinal joint rotations are
(nearly) in stage I (see also chapter 5). With respect to the calculations the same opinion is
made. The calculations also show the maximum coupling forces of about 30kN through the
lateral joint packing material. The dowel and socket system is not activated.
8.4
The uplift loading case at the BRT
In chapter 6 the uplift loading case is presented. This loading case is a consequence of the
assembly process of the lining of the shield driven tunnel. In this paragraph the results are
presented of a frame analysis with the uplift loading case. It is assumed that there is an
incomplete grouting process. This means that the rings are loaded by water pressure because the
injected grout pressure is not adequate to compensate tensile stress changes. This is especially
important at the bottom half of the ring when the rings are exposed to the uplift force. For
further explanation see chapter 6.
122
Figure 97 shows the situation that is analysed using the frame analysis. The two rings in the
model are both supported by the fictitious cos2-top support. The maximum value of the stiffness
of the top support is the overburden ratio =4.5 which results in the stiffness at =0 of
k=4.5N/mm. At the side of the rings the support stiffness is zero. The two rings are coupled to
each other with the coupling stiffness kv from Table 24. The radial loading is only due to the
water pressure and has a distribution as illustrated in Figure 97.
Cos2() stiffness distribution of the fictitious
radial top support on upper half of the ring.
Stiffness ratio due to overburden: =4.5
Dead weight
lining =24kN/m3
k=4.5N/mm
w=0.227MPa
lining
Tangential plastic
yield stress of grout
=1.5*10-3MPa
Water pressure as active

loading
k=0
Impression of the double rings

model in the frame analysis
with the top support
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Phi [degrees]
180
240
300
360
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Stg [MPa] outside
Stg [MPa] inside
Figure 97. The situation in the frame analysis with the uplift loading case.
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Phi [degrees]
180
240
300
360
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Figure 98. The tangential stresses at the inside and outside of the segments. The stresses are given for the
measurements at the BRT, the frame analysis with the uplift loading case and the analytical solution with the normal
load case.
Figure 98 shows the tangential stresses in the lining for the measurements and the calculations.
The results of the frame analysis are due to the uplift loading case with incomplete grouting. As
a reference the results of the analytical solution with the normal load case are also presented.
The results of the frame analysis with the uplift loading case match very well with the
measurements. Once more the influence of the axial forces in the tangential stresses is visible. In
the previous paragraph it is stated that at both sides of the rings (at the outside of the segments)
the amplitude of the measurements shows a larger value than the calculations with the normal
load case. However in Figure 98 it is observed that the results of the frame analysis with the
uplift loading case and incomplete grouting agree well with the measurements. Another
improvement of the fit is found in the tangential normal forces.
Figure 99 shows the tangential normal forces in the rings due to the measurements, the frame
analysis with the uplift loading case and the analytical solution with the normal load case. In the
123
previous paragraph it is already mentioned that the results of the standard load case are quite
constant around the ring circumference while the measurements show a decrease of the
tangential normal forces towards the top of the ring. In Figure 99 the results of the frame
analysis with the uplift loading case show a better agreement with the measurements. The
tendency of the tangential normal forces and the amplitude agree better than the standard load
case. In the figure the influence of the axial forces on the tangential normal forces is clear.
Figure 100 shows the tangential bending moments due to the measurements, the frame analysis
with the uplift loading case and the analytical solution with the standard load case. Both
calculation tendencies agree well with the measured data. The axial forces do not influence the
tangential bending moments.
Ntg [kN/0.75m]
500
0
-500 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-1000
22
22
-1500
-2000
-2500
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Phi [degrees]
Figure 99. The tangential normal forces due to measurements of the BRT, the frame analysis with the uplift loading
case and the analytical solution with the normal load case.
Mtg [kNm/0.75m]
150
100
50
0
-50 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-100
-150
Phi [degrees]
Frame analysis
M easurement BRT
Analytical solution
Figure 100. The tangential bending moments due to the measurements at the BRT, the frame analysis with the uplift
loading case and the analytical solution with the normal load case.
It is obvious that the uplift loading case with the incomplete grouting (hydrostatic water pressure
as loading) results in values that agree very well with the measurements from the BRT. Based on
the presented results in this and the previous paragraph it should be concluded that the equipped
ring at the BRT was assembled in a situation with incomplete grouting. On the other hand it is
concluded that the uplift loading case is an actual load case that can occur in practice. A very
important aspect in this situation is the development of the tangential normal forces. In general
the normal forces are of positive influence to the stress development (the compressive stresses
compensate the tensile stresses due to bending). At the top of the ring the tangential normal
forces could be significantly lower than predicted with models with the normal load case.
Especially in the crack analysis this can be a major mismatch with the actual observed lining
behaviour.
124
8.5
Non-uniformity of the tangential stresses
In the preceding paragraphs the results from measurements are presented as average values over
the segmental width at the time step t=7500. The interpretation of the measurement data shows
that deviations exist from the average values. Figure 101 illustrates the positions of the
measurement devices. The results from each measurement device can be used to analyse the
deviations to the average values for the tangential stresses.
The analysis of the measured data of the separate devices will clarify that the stresses are not
uniformly distributed over the segmental width. In Figure 102 the average tangential stresses are
shown next to the bandwidth derived from the various measuring devices. It is obvious that the
stresses are not uniformly distributed across the segmental width. Deviations of 100% to the
average values occur.
Interpolation values
Average values
Tangential
measurement
device
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-1 0
-1 2
60
1 20
Phi [degrees]
1 80
2 40
av
3 00
hi
3 60
lo
Stg [MPa] outside
Stg [MPa] inside
Figure 101. The average values and the interpolation values for the tangential stresses.
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-1 0
-1 2
60
1 20
Phi [degrees]
1 80
2 40
av
3 00
hi
3 60
lo
Figure 102. The average values of the tangential stresses (av-line) and the bandwidth (local lowest measured value
(lo-line) and local highest measured value (hi-line)) at the inside and the outside of the equipped ring at
t=7500min.
With reference to the previous paragraphs the conclusion can be drawn that average stress levels
can be predicted quite well. Nevertheless the local stress levels can deviate. This is very
important to understand in crack analysis since cracking is a very local problem. In the analysis
of the ULS the local deviations due to non-uniform stress distributions over the segmental width
are not that important.
125
Mtg [kNm/0.75m]
150
100
50
0
-50 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-100
-150
Phi [degrees]
av
hi
lo
Figure 103. The average values of the tangential bending moments (av-line) and the bandwidth (local lowest
measured value (lo-line) and local highest measured value (hi-line)) at t=7500min.
In Figure 103 the average values for the tangential bending moments are shown next to the
bandwidth derived from the separate measurement devices at t=7500. It shows that the deviation
of the values is small. Including the results of the tangential stresses the conclusion can be made
that deviation of stresses is mainly caused by the tangential normal forces. This conclusion is
confirmed in Figure 104.
Ntg [kN/0.75m]
50 0
0
-500 0
60
12 0
18 0
24 0
30 0
36 0
-100 0
-150 0
-200 0
-250 0
Phi [degrees]
av
hi
lo
Figure 104. The averages values of the tangential normal forces (av-line) and the bandwidth (local lowest
measured value (lo-line) and local highest measured value (hi-line)) at t=7500.
From Figure 102 to Figure 104 it has become clear that the force distribution through segments
is not uniformly distributed. Even if the measurements are disturbed by handle holes and bolt
pocket. The deviations of stresses might be caused by local introduction of forces in the
segments. Redistribution of the stresses can not fully be established. The deviation of the
tangential bending moments is minimal and can hypothetically be explained by the local
introduction of forces that cause tangential bending moments while the segment may bend in the
weakest direction (Figure 105).
Figure 105 shows the force introduction through the longitudinal joint. In this figure it is
illustrated that the tangential forces can be introduced eccentrically. This means that the force N
results in a non-uniform distributed tangential normal force over the segmental width. The
tangential bending moment M still causes the segment to bend over the total segmental width.
As a consequence the tangential bending moments are more uniformly distributed. The
assembling process might cause the eccentric force introduction. In the following chapter many
reasons are identified that can contribute to this effect.
126
From the previous paragraphs it is known that the influence of the axial forces is especially
noticeable in the tangential normal forces. The observed bandwidth could also be a result due to
effects like trumpet shape, peel effect and eccentric force introduction (see chapter 9).
Eccentric force
introduction
Figure 105. The eccentric force introduction and the force distribution in the segment.
8.6
The evolution of the stresses during the assembly
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Ph i [degrees]
180
240
av
300
hi
360
lo
Stg [MPa] outside
Stg [MPa] inside
The measurements with the equipped ring at the BRT provide data from the initial loading
through the total sequential process of the erection of segments, the loading of the segments and
the excavation. In this paragraph the evolution of the stresses is analysed in the assembly
process.
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Phi [degrees]
180
240
av
300
360
hi
lo
Figure 106. The average tangential stresses (av-line) and the bandwidth (local lowest measured value (lo-line)
and local highest measured value (hi-line)) at t=100, at the inside and outside the segments.
Figure 106 shows the tangential stresses at t=100. At this particular time step the ring is erected
inside the TBM. The acting load is only due to the axial forces. The figure shows clearly that the
amplitude of the stress levels is low. Of course this is a consequence of the absence of the direct
radial loading. On the other hand there is a bandwidth that shows that even in this time step the
tangential stresses are not uniformly distributed. In chapter 9 and 10 reasons are described that
might cause this bandwidth.
Figure 107 shows the tangential stresses at t=350. At this particular time step the equipped ring
is halfway out of the TBM and is externally loaded by the axial jack forces, the grout pressure
and the grease pressure at the rear of the TBM. This is observed in the amplitude of the stresses.
127
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-1 0
-1 2
60
1 20
1 80
Phi [degrees]
2 40
av
3 00
3 60
hi
lo
Stg [MPa] outside
Stg [MPa] inside
The amplitude increases significantly compared to the values at t=100. Furthermore it is

observed that the bandwidth is very large. The partial radial loading of the ring can cause this.
The shapes of the lines show that the ring already deforms. The developed shape has an
increased horizontal diameter while the vertical diameter decreases (lying egg).
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
180
Phi [degrees]
240
av
300
360
hi
lo
Figure 108 shows the tangential stresses when the equipped ring is fully out of the TBM. Now
the entire ring is loaded in radial direction. It is observed that the bandwidth of the values is
smaller compared to t=350.
Stg [MPa] inside
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Phi [degrees]
180
240
av
300
360
hi
lo
Stg [MPa] outside
Figure 106, Figure 107 and Figure 108 show the evolution of the tangential stresses in the
segments in successive order from t=100, t=350 to t=750. The results for t=7500 are presented
in Figure 102. It is obvious that stresses change in time. For every stage in the assembly process
the tangential stresses show different values. At t=100 the equipped ring is inside the TBM. This
means that only the axial forces act on the segments. The stress levels presented in Figure 106
are directly caused by the axial forces. The following time step is t=350. Now the equipped ring
is halfway out the TBM. The tangential stress values increase. It is obvious that the deviation of
the stress values is very high, when they are compared with the other analysed time steps. At
t=750 the observed stress values are already close to the values at t=7500. It is not clear why in
general the larger bandwidth appears at the outside of the segments. From the previous
paragraphs it is known that influences of the axial forces are especially noticeable in the normal
forces. The observed bandwidth could be a result due to effects like trumpet shape, peel
effect and eccentric force introduction (see chapter 9).
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
60
120
Phi [degrees]
180
240
300
360
av
hi
lo
From this analysis it is clear that non-uniformity of stresses occurs in all stages of the assembly
process. They are most intense when the ring is pushed out of the TBM. The stress levels that
128
remain in the ring when it is in the soil are already present when the ring is just fully out of the
TBM. This means that the loading situation (grouting process) of the ring, just after the rear of
the TBM is very important. It is striking that just in these stages, where the rings leave or just
have left the TBM, the major quality losses are observed.
8.7
The assembling stresses
In this paragraph the assumption is made that at t=7500 the stresses are the representative for the
stresses caused by the loading and the support from the surroundings. These stresses are
dominant during the lifetime of the lining. All the stresses are defined as being assembling
stresses when they occur in earlier stages and are dominant compared to the stresses at t=7500.
Figure 109 shows the average tangential stresses at the four analysed time steps. The black areas
are the tangential stresses at t=7500. All the hatched areas (grey and white areas) are the stresses
in earlier time steps. The black areas cover mostly all the hatched areas. The visible hatched
areas are not covered by the final time step. The visible hatched areas represent the assembling
stresses.
The time step t=100 shows many visible hatched areas that represent tangential tensile stresses.
The tensile stresses occur due to the jack forces and the lateral contraction. This time step shows
the average maximum tensile stresses up to 2MPa. It is mentioned again that at t=100 the radial
loading on the equipped ring is absent.
Next the equipped ring is half through or fully outside the TBM. Near the key segment
significant assembling stresses are observed. These stresses are at maximum twice as high as the
stresses at t=7500. These stresses may occur at both time steps when the ring is halfway and
fully out of the TBM. The areas at more distance from the key segment show less assembling
stresses. Significant assembling stress levels mostly occur at the compressed side of the lining.
Phi [degrees]
t=10 0
t=35 0
t=75 0
t=75 00
339
290
250
208
167
125
84
44
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
S_tg [MPa] Outside
339
290
250
208
167
125
84
44
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-1 0
-1 2
S_tg [MPa] Intside
The tensile stresses that occur at t=100 diminish when the radial loading starts to act on the ring
at t=350 and later.
Phi [degrees]
t=100
t=350
t=750
t=7500
Figure 109. The average tangential stresses at the inside and the outside of the equipped ring for the four analysed
time steps.
From Figure 109 specific zones can be pointed out where the tensile stress might exceed the
strength of the concrete and cracks can occur. At t=100 at the inside of the entire circumference
of the ring the tensile stresses appear. In the later stages only the top and bottom of the ring show
tensile stresses. It is known from observations in practice that at these zones cracks often appear.
At the outside of the ring again tensile stresses appear. It is observed that at the outside of the
129
ring even at t=7500 at the sides of the rings tensile stresses appear. As a consequence cracking
might occur that is not observed.
It is described that the stresses at t=7500 can be exceeded in the earlier stages at t=100, t=350
and t=750. In the following analysis it is counted how many times a tensile stress occurs in an
earlier stage while the stress value of the same device at t=7500 is lower. This is useful for the
understanding that normative situations (e.g. for crack analysis) can occur in other stages than
the stage analysed in the design (e.g. t=7500). All measurement devices are analysed separately.
The results of this count are presented as histograms in Figure 110. On the horizontal axis the
values for tensile stresses are given. The histograms are explained as follows. At t=100 33% of
the devices show a tensile stress between 0 and 1MPa where the same devices at t=7500 show a
stress value lower than 0MPa. At t=100 16% of the devices show a tensile stress between 1 and
2MPa where the same devices at t=7500 show a stress value lower than 1MPa.
Exceeding percentage [%]
At t=100 (the ring is erected and still in the TBM) many devices show a tensile stress with
higher values than the stress values at t=7500. In total 59% of the devices show a tensile stress
where the stresses at t=7500 are lower. At t=350 there are less locations (28% in total) with
tensile stresses which exceed the values at t =7500. At t=750 just 17% of the devices show a
tensile stress that exceeds the stresses at t=7500. Therefore it is concluded that especially the
stages at t=100 (ring in the TBM) and t=350 (ring halfway out of the TBM) are important in the
crack analysis. As concluded before the stresses at t=750 (the ring fully out of the TBM) do not
deviate much from the values at t=7500.
35%
30%
25%
t=100
20%
t=350
t=750
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
The tensile stress that is underspent [MPa]
Figure 110. Histogram of the number of times that the tensile stresses (at an analysed time step t) at the concrete
surface exceed the (measured) stress at t=7500.
8.8
The influence of time on the calculated stresses from measured strains
The analysed measurement data from the BRT involve the time steps t=100 to the time step
t=7500 minutes. The oldest analysed measured data is 7500 minutes (5.22 days) old. The
initial axial loading is present after a couple of hundred minutes (estimated time 100 minutes).
Then, at t=350 minutes, the equipped ring is half way out of the TBM and partly radially loaded.
This means that at the time t=7500 minutes, the ring is loaded in the axial direction for 5.22 days
and in the radial direction for 5 days.
The translation of the measured strains to the stresses involves the Youngs modulus of the
concrete (in the translation Ec=40.000MPa). It is known that due to a constant loading of
130
concrete the long-term effect creep will occur. This means that progressive deformation occurs
due to a constant loading, while the stresses in the concrete remain constant. The question is
what influence the creep-effect has on the translation of the measured strains to the calculated
stresses.
In [19] a relation is given for the Youngs modulus depending on time:
Ec
E c ,t =
1+ t
With
Ec = Youngs modulus just before loading
Ec,t = Youngs modulus after the time t that the concrete is loaded
= Creep coefficient for the time t that the concrete is loaded
t
The creep coefficient t is important to estimate the Youngs modulus at the time t. Test results
from laboratory tests at the Stevin laboratory of the Delft University of Technology are available
(Figure 111) to estimate the factor t. The age of the specimen concrete at the time of loading
was one year. The measurements in practice were applied on segments with similar age.
At the time t=0 the specimen is loaded. As a reaction there will be an elastic deformation (0.088
in Figure 111). Then the time dependent deformation starts.
At the time t=5 days the deformation has progressed (0.098 in Figure 111). During this period
the loading is constant. The difference between the deformation at t=0 (after elastic deformation)
and t=5 days is caused by creep of the concrete. The factor t is calculated by the results of
Figure 111:
E
0.098
t =
= c ,0 0 = (1 + t ) 0 t = t 1 =
1 = 0.11
0.088
E c ,t
E c ,t
0
The creep factor
loading.
results in a decrease of the Youngs modulus of about 10% after 5 days of
deformation by creep [-]
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
4
5
6
Loading time t [days]
Figure 111. Creep as function of time after loading.
From the concrete cube tests [15] from which the Youngs modulus is determined, the advice is
given that the Youngs modulus of the concrete of the equipped ring is somewhere between
131
40.000 to 45.000MPa. The translation of the strains to stresses is made with the lowest value for
all the analysed time steps t=0, t=100, t=350 and t=7500. The early time could be translated by
the use of the higher Youngs modulus that will result in 10% higher stresses. Still the
conclusions of the comparisons will not change.
8.9
The measurements of the SHT
The Second Heinenoord Tunnel (SHT) is the first large diameter shield driven tunnel in the
Netherlands. Two equipped rings are applied with strain gauges in this tunnel to measure the
strains in the concrete. From the strains the tangential bending moments are derived. The values
of the first equipped ring are presented in Figure 112 at three time steps: 1, 5 and 670 days after
the erection of the ring. The SHT has an internal diameter of Di=7600mm, a segmental thickness
of d=350mm and a segmental width of 1500mm. The rings consist of 7 segments and a key
segment. The contact area in the longitudinal joints is lt=158mm and the concrete quality is B55.
The tail gap was injected with a soil mixture without cements.
The measured values for the tangential bending moment (Figure 112) show that the tangential
bending moments develop in time. With an increasing time the tangential bending moments do
also increase. This is very often related to the reestablishment of the soil stresses and the
activation of the tangential loading components. The figure also presents two lines with the
results of frame analyses. The first calculation is based on the normal soil conditions, without
the tangential loading component (normal load). The second calculation is based on the uplift
loading case with complete grouting (uplift load). Both calculations only involve the period
just after the erection of the ring and should only be compared with the measurements at day 1
and 5. It is obvious that the results of both calculations agree very well with the measured
tangential bending moments at day five. An analysis with the incomplete grouting results in an
overestimation of the tangential bending moments at day five. This could hold the conclusion
that the injection process of the SHT was actually a complete grouting process.
Tangential bending moments

[kNm/0.75m]
80
1 day
60
40
5 days
20
670 days
0
-20 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
normal load
-40
-60
-80
Angle [degrees]
uplift load
complete
grouting
Figure 112. The tangential bending moments of the SHT at 1, 5 and 670 days after the erection of the equipped ring.
The graph also shows two lines representing calculations with the frame analysis.
132
8.10
Conclusions
In this chapter a comparison is made between results of calculations and measurements of real
tunnel linings in practice. The comparison is focused on the tangential components of internal
forces.
It has become clear that the influence of the axial forces on the tangential components is
especially visible in the tangential stresses and the tangential normal forces. The contribution of
the axial forces to these tangential components is established by the involvement of the lateral
contraction. The tangential bending moments do not show this influence. Nevertheless the
influence of the couplings in the lateral joints is visible.
The comparison of the calculated results with the measurement data of the BRT holds the
conclusion that the uplift loading case with the incomplete grouting has occurred. The
comparison of the tangential stresses, the tangential normal forces and the tangential bending
moments confirm a very good match with the calculation results based on the incomplete
grouting in the uplift loading case.
The calculated system of rings shows deformations of about 5mm. This amplitude of radial
deformations agrees well with the observed and measured deformations elsewhere in the tunnel.
The amplitude of the deformations also corresponds with the values in the full-scale test at the
Stevin laboratory of the Delft University of Technology.
The measurements show that tangential stresses are not uniformly distributed over the segmental
width. An analysis of the several stages in the assembly shows that, especially when the ring is
within the TBM or just leaves the rear of the TBM, the distribution of the tangential stresses is
highly non-uniform. This is of special interest when crack analyses are carried out. It is also
observed that in these stages the amplitudes of values occur that exceed the values in later
stages. This does not confirm for example the basic assumption that the assembly is nonnormative.
The comparison of the results of the model with the measured data at the SHT allows the
conclusion that the load conditions at the assembly should be due to the uplift loading case with
complete grouting or just the normal load case without the tangential components. It is obvious
that the internal forces in the lining develop in time.
Observation of the assembly of the lining
9.1
Introduction
133
The design approach should always be based on the condition that the serviceability stage is
normative. Basic assumptions are made to the assembly to fulfil this condition. It has to be
proven that these basic assumptions are valid in the design, the construction and the
exploitation. In the case that the assembly would be governing in design in stead of the
serviceability stage, economical losses would occur because the assembling stage is only a
minor period in the lifetime of the lining.
The verification of the validity of the basic assumptions is of major importance in the design, the
construction and the exploitation. From the measurements and observations of several projects
realised already it becomes clear that the basic assumption of a non-normative assembly is not
satisfactory.
The basic assumption of a non-normative assembling stage includes some assumptions made
with regard to the lining and the assembly of the lining. For example:
The assembly results in a perfectly circular ring.
The supports of the segments are perfectly even.
The key segments fit perfectly.
The amplitude of the jack forces is limited.
The injection material load does not result in normative internal forces in or deformations
of the segments.
The sequential loading does not result in normative internal forces in or normative
deformations of the segments.
The passive stabilising support of the injection materials is satisfactory.
Joints between segments are well closed after the erection of the segments.
Based on these basic assumptions it is concluded that the forces during the assembling stage are
not normative. Practice shows that this conclusion should not be made too easily. Especially the
combinations of disagreements of the above basic assumptions might result in a normative
assembly stage.
This chapter describes observations and conclusions of measurements of the assembly to
provide insight into the irregularities to the sketched basic assumptions.
The chapter starts with a general description of the assembling process, followed by observed
damages and cracking patterns. An overview is given of causes for the damages and cracking.
Hypotheses based on the measurements at the SHT give insight into the stress development
during the assembly that might cause critical stress levels. Also measurements from the BRT
provide arguments for the stress development during the assembly. From the full-scale tests at
the Delft University of Technology some causes are described that might lead to cracks and
damages.
134
9.2

The general assembling process
The goal of the ideal assembling process of the lining is to build a perfectly circular ring without
any remaining initial stresses, well closed joints and equal supports of all segments.
The design of the segments and the ring layout intent a perfect system of segments with a
perfectly circular shape of the ring. The segmental size is as large as possible to minimise the
number of repeating handlings. The equipment capacity and the available handling space
enforce the maximum size. The observed tunnels have a ring layout with 7-9 segments and a
segmental width of 1.5-2m.
The assembling process of the lining can be subdivided into two main events: the erection of the
ring and the excavation by the TBM. To understand the irregularities to the basic assumptions, a
brief summation is given of events during the two main events. This summation involves events
that could be of influence on the deviations to the basic assumptions.
The erection process of the ring (events that might be of influence on the deviations to the basic
assumptions):
The manufacturing of the segments.
The storage of the segments.
The application of packing materials in the lateral joints.
The transport of the segments.
The elevation by the erector within the TBM.
The releasing of a couple of TBM jacks to create space.
The positioning of the segment by the erector.
The compression of the gaskets in the longitudinal and the lateral joint with the erector.
The reactivation of the earlier released couple of TBM jacks.
The fixation of the joint bolds for safety to ensure gasket compression and stability of the
segment in time of jack failure.
The closing of the ring with the final segment (mostly key segment).
The excavation process (events that might be of influence on the deviations to the basic
assumptions):
The increase of the jack forces to drive the TBM.
The application of injection materials in the tail gap.
The hardening of the injection material.
The decrease of the jack forces at the end of the TBM excavation to start the erection
process.
The remaining of the axial forces in the lateral joints at long term.
In the ideal lining design none of the above process steps causes harm to the lining. In the design
this ideal situation is usually assumed.

9.3
135
The observed damage and crack patterns
The quality loss is of main importance to risk control. It has become clear that the quality loss
during the assembly by damage and cracking might have a major influence on the additional
costs for repair and maintenance. From literature, analyses, measurements and observations an
overview can be given of damage and crack patterns and their possible causes. This paragraph
describes the observed damage and crack patterns.
The segmented tunnel linings show some identical damage and crack patterns (Figure 113 and
Figure 114). The damage and crack patterns are described in Table 25.
3
1
segment
2
dowel - socket
9
key segment
Figure 113. Observed damage patterns (spalling).
Table 25. Description of damage and crack patterns (the numbers refer to Figure 113 and Figure 114).
nr
Description
Visible
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Damage next and parallel to longitudinal joints

Damage near the bolts or the dowel and socket
Edge damage
Major dowel damage
Minor dowel damage
Socket edge damage
Key segment longitudinal joint damage
Key segment edge damage
Key segment lateral damage
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
No
No
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Repair
possible
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
No
No
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
a
b
c
d
e
f
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Only at inside
Tension cracks between jack forces

In line tension crack
Cracks due to unequal support
Torsion cracks (combined with jack forces)
Tolerance cracks in longitudinal joint
Longitudinal cracks (e.g. due to badly closed
longitudinal joint)
Corner cracks
Only at inside
Only at inside
L1
L2
Leakage not compressed gasket

Leakage rolled up gasket
leakage
leakage
Yes
Yes
It is obvious that almost all the damages and cracks can only be observed from the inside of the
tunnel, while they also occur at the outside of the rings. Only repairs of the observed damages
and cracks on the inside of the tunnel could be executed if the intervention criteria demand
136
repair. This means that without any design optimisations only half the structure at maximum
could be observed and repaired.
Support in lateral joint
a
b
a
Jack force
e
f
Figure 114. Observed crack patterns.
9.4
Causes of damage and crack patterns
This paragraph describes a wide range of causes of damages and cracking with a brief
explanation. Quality loss identifiers and their causes have been assigned (the numbers point to
the numbers in Table 25). It is made clear that a general assignment can not be made due to the
variety in designs of linings. For each design an assignment has to be made based on system
analyses. Still the assignments of identifiers give a good impression of the causes and the effects
on quality loss. In chapter 10 examples are given for some of the causes.
9.4.1 Configuration of the lining and TBM jacks
The dowel socket tolerances.
2,4,5,6
Lateral joint
Lateral joint
Socket
Socket
Dowel
Segment
tolerance
Wide tolerance
Segment
Dowel
Segment
1.
Narrow tolerance
Figure 115. Illustration of the sliding tolerance of the dowel and socket system.
Experience has taught that a wider tolerance will let the dowel slide freely in the socket (Figure
115). At the time of minimal sliding the active lateral force does not occur because the dowel
and socket are not in contact. Still the dowel and socket support actively when the deformation
137
differences between the rings exceed the sliding tolerances of the dowel and socket. A smaller
tolerance will directly cause contact of the dowel in the socket (this caused much damage at the
SHT). Lateral forces might be very high (the dowel and socket result in a very high coupling
stiffness kv when they are in contact). The dowel or socket fails when it is not capable of
resisting the lateral force.
When the dowel and socket system is applied, a very clear goal has to be defined for this detail
because this detail can also cause quality loss. During the assembly and the exploitation of the
tunnel the function of this detail has to be validated.
2.
Tolerance of segmental sizes.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f,L1
The design mostly assumes perfect sizes of the segments. The manufactured geometry will
always differ from the assumed perfect geometry. As a consequence local stress spots might
occur due to e.g. poor supports of segments, not fitting of key segments, poorly closed joints,
enforced deformations of segments and early contacts of dowel and socket.
3.
Too small gasket profile.
L1
There are many reasons that adjoining rings will show unequal radial deformations (e.g. 2, 12,
13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 31). If the design does not perform with these unequal
deformations and the gaskets are not able to endure these deformations, then leakage will occur
definitely.
4.
High stiffness of gaskets / too narrow lateral

contraction space for gaskets.
1,2,3,6,7,8,9
spalling
Figure 116. Illustration of a consequence of too narrow lateral contraction space: spalling.
In the design most often the stiffness of the gaskets is neglected for passing on forces to other
segments. This assumption might lead to damage when the stiffness of the gaskets increases.
Then high forces are necessary to compress the gaskets and those forces will start to pass on
through the gaskets, instead of the packet materials and concrete contact areas. If the concrete
volume around the gaskets is not designed to these high compressive forces through the gaskets,
damage might appear (Figure 116).
5.
Concrete reduced areas (bold pockets and handle holes).
a,b,c,d,f
There are areas in the segments where the concrete volume is reduced (bold pockets, handle
holes, Figure 125). The regular design prescribes simple rules on how to deal with reinforcement
around these areas. The practice shows that cracking is especially introduced by these areas.
138
6.
Deformation difference and tolerance on bold pockets.
Steel bolts are applied at the assembly to ensure the compression of gaskets and minimise the
risk of segment drop when uncontrolled jack release occurs. The segments are equipped with
bold holes. When adjoining segments are deforming differently, the bolds and bold holes can not
resist these displacements when segments and bolds are not specially designed to this. The
sliding tolerance must be sufficient.
7.
Jack force introduction.
2,3,4,5,6,8,a,b,c,d,f
Jack forces can reach high values and cause high stress levels in the concrete segments. The
introduction of the jack forces will cause splitting forces in the concrete. In the design it is often
assumed that the jack forces are introduced purely centred in the segments. The practice shows
deformation of the rings or rolling of the TBM that result in eccentric introduction of the jack
forces. Due to already deformed rings jack forces will not act in the axial neutral area of
adjoining segments. Second order deformations (and stresses) will result. The TBM excavation
wheel is rotating. The TBM is steered. Rings are already deformed. All these are causes for
outline introduction of TBM jack forces. It is sometimes necessary that jack forces exceed
limitation protocols to be able to continue excavation. Tensile stress areas will appear inbetween the introduction areas of the jack force. Especially excessive high jack forces cause
high tensile stress levels. Lateral contraction due to jack forces is additional to tangential
stresses in segments. Locally tangential stress levels will increase or decrease. Unexpected
deformations and stress levels might occur. In the design the critical stress levels including
stresses due to the (eccentric) jack forces have to be analysed.
8.
Jack configuration.
3,8,a,b,a,b,c
Jack positions
BRT
GHT
Segment
Figure 117. Illustration of the jack configurations at the BRT and the GHT.
The TBM jack distribution around the circumference of the lining is very important:
The position of the jacks related to the position of the longitudinal joints: if jack forces are
introduced near longitudinal joints, unequal introduction of the force might occur when
the segments are not equally positioned.
If just a few jacks are applied in the TBM, the few jacks have to act with very high forces.
Introduction of these forces might be critical. More jacks will result in better-distributed
force introduction.
Jack forces must be able to be introduced in segments in line with the axial direction of the
lining.
Lateral forces from jacks have to be avoided.
139
In Figure 117 the jack configurations of the BRT and the GHT are shown. Three jacks act on a
segment at the BRT. Two of the jacks act on the longitudinal joints. Two jacks act on a segment
at the GHT.
9.
Rotational stiffness of longitudinal joints.
1,2,4,5,6,7,f
In the design the rotational stiffness of longitudinal joints is assumed. Since the longitudinal
joints are concrete hinges, the relation between occurring increasing rotation and tangential
bending moment will show a non-linear relation, which also depends on the tangential normal
force. Analyses show that the macro deformations of the rings in major depend on the applied
rotational stiffness. The actual rotational stiffness has to be verified to satisfy the assumptions of
the rotational stiffness.
10.
Packing materials in lateral joints.
c,d,f
In the design the properties (stiffness, sizes, durability) and positions of the packing materials
are assumed. It has to be ensured that these values are applied. Packing materials are of major
influence on local stress levels. Differences in these values might cause quality loss.
11.
Material quality of segments.
All
In the design appropriate material quality of the segments is assumed. The applied mixture,
demoulding and hardening are of main importance to produced quality. The production process
is very often equipped to guarantee a minimum quality. There will be a deviation of the required
quality. Deviations to very high quality should be controlled in respect of the required bending
stiffness, minimum reinforcements and fire protection. Deviations to very low quality should be
banned.
9.4.2 Subsequent loading and misalignments during the assembly
12.
Assembling of wider ring against already deformed

ring.
Ring 3
2,4,5,6,a,b,L1
Frad
Ring 2
Ring 1
Figure 118. Illustration of the sequential radial loading of rings.
The already assembled and radially loaded rings show radial deformations. Radial forces do not
load a new ring initially. Practice has shown that the assembly of the ring including well-closed
longitudinal joints is very hard. The presence of the axial forces generates frictional resistance in
the lateral joint with the adjoining ring. At the time of the radial loading of the new ring, when
140
the new ring is pushed out of the TBM, the radial deformations of the new ring are resisted less
at the thrust side compared to the side of the new ring near the adjoining ring (Figure 118). This
will result in three-dimensional deformation. Local contact areas will appear in the longitudinal
joints of the new ring where hoop forces will dominantly act.
13.
Stepped deformations of the rings.
2,3,4,5,6,8,a,b,d,e
Due to the assembly, the sequential loading of the rings and the frictional resistance in the lateral
joints, the rings behind the TBM will not be deformed equally. Even when the radially acting
load is equal for all rings, three-dimensional deformations of every ring might occur. If the
assembly acts equally for every ring, a repeating three-dimensional deformation results in
stepped deformations of rings. This type of deformations is often observed in practice.
14.
The trumpet shape of the assembled lining.

Grout loading
TBM Shield
TBM jack
Segment from
erected ring
2,3,4,5,6,8,9,c,d,e,f,L1
Shape change at top of ring
Segment radially deformed
Figure 119. Illustration of the 'Trumpet shape' when the ring is pushed out of the TBM and partly radially loaded.
A new ring is assembled to the existing adjoining rings, which are already loaded in radial
direction. As a consequence the already loaded rings are deformed. At the presence of the axial
forces the friction resistance occurs at the lateral joints. When the new ring is pushed out of the
TBM, the ring is (partly) loaded by the radial force. Due to the partial radial loading and the
friction resistance in the lateral joint with the adjoining ring, a three dimensional deformation
will appear, which is called the Trumpet shape (Figure 119). As a result the supports in the
lateral joints of the segments are not equal, the axial forces do not act at the neutral lines, the
segments experience enforced deformations (see torsion, 15) and the longitudinal joints are not
compressed equally.
15.
The torsion of segments.
The torsion of segments by enforced deformation might occur due to the trumpet shape. Due to
the very high torsion stiffness of segments, the critical stress levels are easily reached and
cracking will appear. In chapter 10 explanation and examples are given on how this mechanism
results in cracks in the segments.

TBM Shield
TBM jack
Initially round shape
Radial
deformation of
ring due to
grout/soil loading
Segment from
erected ring
141
Grout loading
Segment radially
deformed
Shape change at top of ring (side view)
TBM Shield
TBM jack
Segment from
erected ring
Grout loading
Segment radially
deformed
Torsion of
segment due to
shape change
Shape change at flank of ring (top view)
Figure 120. Illustration of the torsion mechanism due to the trumpet shape at the assembly.
16.
The ovalisation of tapered rings.
The tapered rings (the segmental width differs over the circumference of the ring) will provide a
perfectly even lateral joint if they are not radially deformed. Theoretically the ovalisation of the
tapered rings will disrupt this even support and after many rings an unequal support in the lateral
joints will be noticeable. As a consequence stresses are concentrated instead of uniformly
distributed (Figure 121). In [1] and [12] an explanation is given to this phenomenon.
Figure 121. Illustration of stress paths as a consequence of ovalisation of tapered rings [1].
17.
Initial deformed assembled shape of rings.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,d,f,L1
Theoretically an assembled ring is perfectly circular. Practice shows that the assembled shape
will not be perfectly round. As a consequence e.g. joints are not well closed (longitudinal joints),
dowel and socket will be in early contact and jack forces might not be introduced centrically.
18.
Forced assembly of the key segment.
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,e,f,L1,L2
Mathematically the assembly of a ring never results in the exact space necessary to fit the key
segments. Finally too less or too wide space is available to place the final segment of the ring. In
142
case there is too little space very often the main jacks of the TBM are used to force the key
segment into its position (Figure 127). The forcing of the key segment with the typical wedge
shape will introduce enormous tangential forces to enlarge the space for placing. Results from
the laboratory tests and observations show that this forcing of the keystone is of very poor
influence to the lining quality. Because the active forces act in the axial direction, the friction in
the supports of the lateral joints of the adjoining segments increases. This offers resistance to
deformations of the adjoining segments of the key segment. Since this resistance will only occur
in the lateral joint of the adjoining ring, a three-dimensional deformation occurs. Now a local
contact area in the longitudinal joint appears where the normal forces are introduced when grout
or soil activates radial loading. On the other hand the segments tilt. This is of influence on the
local supports of the segments in the lateral joint. In chapter 10 an example is given on how the
influence of the forced placement can be analysed.
19.
Loose assembly of the key segment.
3,8,cd,e,L1
If the available space for the key segment is too wide, at least one of the longitudinal joints next
to the key segment is not well closed. The presence of the axial forces generates a frictional
resistance in the lateral joint with the adjoining ring. At the time of the radial loading when the
new ring is pushed out of the TBM, the radial deformations are resisted less at the thrust side
compared to the side of the new ring near the adjoining ring. This again results in threedimensional deformation. A local contact area in the longitudinal joint appears where tangential
normal forces will act when the radial loading is activated. On the other hand the segments tilt.
This is of influence on the local supports of the segments in the lateral joint.
20.
Unequal supports in lateral joints.
3,8,a,b,c,e
Ring 3
Ring 1
Figure 122. Illustration of unequal support.
At the design of the lining the supports of segments in the lateral joints will provide even
support to the segment to receive the high axial jack forces. Practice shows that the supports
might not act that even. The unequal support disturbs the stress development and might cause
high local stress spots (Figure 122). Causes of unequal supports can be found in
The accumulated deformations due to the radial deformations in combination with the
tapered rings.
The tolerances of the packing materials in the lateral joints.
The tolerances of the segments.
The accumulated deformations due to the high local axial forces.
The accumulated deformations due to the trumpet shape.
The temporary release of jacks when erecting new segments.
The tilt of segments due to inaccurate assembly.
143
In chapter 10 examples are given on how to analyse the effects of unequal supports. It will turn
out that mechanisms occur that can easily cause damage to the segments.
9.4.3 Consequences of the assembling process
21.
Excessive and inadequate grouting.
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,f,L1
Around the lining grout is injected to provide a filling of the space that appears behind the TBM
between the lining and the soil. In chapter 6 a description has been given of the injected material
and the consequences for the loading of the lining. The uplift loading case can cause higher
internal forces than expected. Especially when the grouting is incomplete. On the other hand the
material behaviour could result in local pressure increases at the locations where the grout is
injected. Both situations are unfavourable for the internal forces in the lining
22.
Gaskets in relation to shifting of segments during the assembly.
L1, L2
The operational protocols for the erection of the segments mostly prescribe well-closed
longitudinal joints, when a new segment is erected. Observations show that the segments are
handled with the erector and initially positioned quite closely to their final position next to the
adjoining segments. During the last movement there is already contact between the gaskets of
the new segments and the adjoining segments. As a consequence the gaskets are sliding over
each other (Figure 123). It is observed that the gaskets can roll up due to frictional stresses. As a
consequence leakage appears. This is mostly observed near the key segment (forced fitting) and
at the corners of the other segments.
New segment
sealing
Roll up of sealing
Figure 123. Illustration of the roll up of sealing due to shifting a new segment to its position.
23.
Sliding over the lateral joints.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,f
The uplift loading case from chapter 6 results in an uplift force on the lining. When the friction
in the lateral joint has sufficient resistance a longitudinal structural behaviour of the lining might
occur. Without sufficient lateral friction resistance the rings might slide from each other. This is
a major problem when the movement can not be controlled. Practice shows that the conditions
and the properties of the injected materials and the lateral frictional resistance are of major
importance to diminish sliding.
24.
Jack releasing.
2,3,4,5,6,8,c,e,L1
The axial jacks cause axial forces in the lining. As a result the frictional resistance appears in the
lateral joints. To provide space for the erection of new segments, some couples of jacks are
144
temporarily released. As a consequence the local frictional resistance in the lateral joint
diminishes. Non-linear radial displacements of adjoining segments might occur. Next, the axial
compression of the segments diminishes. The axial elastic deformation of the segment and the
packing materials might be relieved. The supports in the lateral joint for new segments might be
(temporarily) unequal.
25.
Touching of the TBM shield.
4,5,6,f
Almost in every case that the TBM shield touches the lining a quality loss of the lining occurs.
The touch is a point load on the new lining. The round system behaves badly on point loading. It
is obvious that touching has to be prevented.
26.
Steering the TBM (unequal jack forces).
2,3,8,a,b,d,f
The designers of the lining have to realise that steering the TBM is a hard and a delicate job.
Being out of control of steering the machine might result in misalignment of the tunnel or more
badly sacrifice of the machine. Steering the machine is carried out with the TBM jacks. Jack
forces easily reach very high levels at, for example, the bottom side of the ring while force levels
are minimal at the opposite site. As a consequence the axial deformation of rings is unequal, the
lateral friction resistance is unequal and the direction of the introduction of the jack forces might
not be in line with the axial direction of the lining. Unexpected deformations and stress levels
might occur.
27.
Learning curve in experience.
All
Analyses of several projects show that causes for quality loss are not uniform. In each project
learning is needed to find the main causes for quality losses. At all beginning within the learning
curve it has been tried to decrease quality loss. Generally after the learning curve quality loss
will be less than within the curve. Changes of circumstances in production every time show a
(short) new learning curve.
28.
Operating protocol for the assembly.
All
In the design many assumptions are made in respect of the assembly of rings. Operating
protocols for the assembly have to ensure a sufficient assembly to satisfy the made assumptions.
The control of the assembly is of major importance to minimise the quality loss during the
assembly.
29.
Operating protocol measuring tolerances of segments.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,c,d,e,f
The shape of segments is very complex to measure. To guarantee tolerances of the segmental
sizes a sufficient protocol must be available to measure the segments.
30.
Measurements of ring joint for even supports.
Even when the design assumes even supports in the lateral joints for the segments, the
measurements of support alignment show differences from the assumption made. Measuring the
145
evenness has to provide information for satisfying the assumption. Measures have to be taken to
ensure the evenness if intervention levels are exceeded.
31.
Smearing gel on the key segment.
2,3,8,e,f
In respect of the enforced placement of the key segment (18) often additional smearing is
applied to facilitate the placement. The lateral frictional resistance in the longitudinal joints will
decrease and this might result in out of line placements.
32.
Injections and repairs of damages.
Intervention levels are applied to decide whether or not repair is necessary if quality losses
appear. Practice shows that damages (1-9, if observed) are attempted to be repaired, cracking (af, if observed) is sometimes attempted to be repaired and leakage always is attempted to be
repaired. Especially cracking needs assessment. At some projects only major cracking needs
repair (e.g. chemical injections) which involves only 1% of the total cracking. A consequence of
chemical injection is the pollution of the concrete surfaces, which have to be cleaned. The
occurrence of damage and cracking demands inspection forces, decisions of repair, labour to
execute repair, and cleaning. Also interference with logistics might be of negative influence on
the project. Quality loss tells that unfavourable system behaviour has occurred. It has to be
analysed what consequence this has for the remaining quality (durability, quality loss to be
expected, safety).
33.
Longitudinal behaviour of the lining.
The uplift loading case causes an uplift force on the lining behind the TBM. This might cause
global longitudinal structural behaviour of the lining. This means that the displacement of the
lining just behind the TBM can influence the lining further away from the TBM. Also
settlements over the length of the lining can cause this global influence. In [5] solutions are
given how to deal with this longitudinal structural behaviour. From the longitudinal structural
behaviour it is known that lateral forces in the lateral joints and the local axial forces can
change. As a consequence this influences the internal forces in the segments.
9.4.4 Long term issues
34.
Hard supports of linings (e.g. at shafts).
All
In respect of the connections of the lining to adjoining structures (e.g. shafts) the influence of the
support of the lining has to be analysed and verified. Hard supports that restrain lining
deformation and movement will cause extensive disturbances of internal stresses. Monitoring of
the lining near hard supports is very important to predict the behaviour. Intervention must be
possible before the critical behaviour occurs.
146
35.
Long term radial deformation.
1,7,f
The stability of the lining depends on the soil loading and the support. Excavation, grouting, soil
properties, exploitation and environmental conditions influence the soil loading and the support.
Changes in time have to be notified to predict the long term behaviour of the lining.
36.
Diminishing of lateral frictional resistance
1,4,5,6,7,f
Local stress levels in segments might vary in dependence of the ring interaction as a result of
lateral frictional resistance. Lateral frictional resistance occurs due to axial pre-stressing. In time
the axial pre-stress might decrease. A change of behaviour should not lead to quality loss or
exceedance of limit states.
9.5
Conclusions from measurements and observations of built tunnels and the full-scale
test
9.5.1 Hypotheses due to the measurements from the SHT

The construction of the first shield driven tunnel in the Netherlands included an extensive
surface and subsurface monitoring program. Subsurface monitoring involved the structural
analyses of the lining, using two instrumented rings equipped with strain gauges and pressure
cells. From this monitoring program hypotheses were formulated to describe the phenomena
during the assembly and their effects on the lining behaviour. Results from the measurements
indicate that the measured strain values significantly differ from those reported in literature. It is
supposed that the differences were mainly due to phenomena that occur during:
I.
The assembly of a ring
II. The subsequent loading by grout and soil pressure when a ring leaves the TBM
According to the measurement data set, the first perceptions, the observations and the
hypotheses it is concluded that the stresses in the concrete lining segments are initialised by the
following factors [6]:
The ring assembly:
a) The eccentric placement of the jacks on the segments.
b) The dimensional imperfections of segments.
c) The non accurate assembly of segments.
The jack forces (the global bending moment and the steering correction of the TBM).
The difference in (radial) loads between the ring in the shield and the rest in the
construction stage.
The load circumstances in the serviceability stage.
It became clear that the stress development already started before the radial loading from the
surrounding grout or soil was acting on the lining. Of course the direct stress development due
to the axial jack forces acts in the segments. This causes axial stress levels. Due to the lateral
contraction the tangential stresses also occur. The measured stress levels did not agree with the
stress levels expected from jack forces only. From evaluations of the events at the time of the
subsequent assembly and the excavation, in combination with the measurements, the following
hypotheses were generated [6]:
Hypothesis 1 - assembling stresses
147
It was concluded from the results of measurement data that the internal stresses introduced into
the lining during the assembly of segments do not disappear afterwards. So, the total stresses in
the lining in the serviceability stage are strongly influenced by the assembling stresses.
Hypothesis 2 - plane stresses
The results of the measurements have shown that the distribution of tangential stresses around
the key segment is non-uniform. Hypothetically this could be provoked by the fact that the
stresses are locally transmitted through the edges of the key segments or that they are migrating
from one ring to another (Figure 124).
Figure 124. Subjective illustration of stress paths around the key segment.
Two hypothetical reasons are established to explain these phenomena and both of them indicate
the fact that the key segment is not properly connected with the other adjoining segments:
1. The non-accurate assembly of the segments during the construction stage causes an
unsuitable space for the key segment. The key segment is forced to fit. Because of friction in
the lateral joint with the preceding ring, forces will be transmitted locally.
2. The deformation differences between the rings activate the ring interaction through friction
in the lateral joints. The longitudinal joint in the ring has a smaller stiffness than the adjacent
segments. When a ring deforms the stresses concentrate mostly at the stiffer parts of the ring.
Because of the ring interaction the stresses might partly be transferred from one ring to
another.
Hypothesis 3: The axial normal forces
The axial normal forces in the tunnel lining develop mainly because of the influence of the TBM
jack forces. During the observation of the first equipped ring it was noticed that some sort of
stress relaxation occurred. The same phenomenon has been observed at the second equipped
ring. But here the relaxation is shown through a decrease of the axial normal forces at the top of
the tunnel and stagnation at the rest of the lining. The possible explanation of the phenomenon
that occurred at the second equipped ring could be found in a second mechanism besides the
first one. The first mechanism deals with the stress relaxation caused by the lining-soil
interaction. This is seen through the balance between the axial normal forces in the lining and
the total jack forces from TBM. The average value of the jack forces shows a slight decrease in
time and a notable decrease of the axial normal forces. The second mechanism deals with the
eccentricity of the resultant of the axial normal forces (the total axial bending moment of the
tunnel as a complete section). This global axial bending moment shows, during the first days
after assembly, a significant change of values. The position of the resulting axial force from the
TBM is close to the neutral line. After a few days it sinks more down. This means that the
magnitude of the axial normal forces at the top of the tunnel decrease and those at the bottom
148
increase. The increase of the forces can be interpreted as a compensation of the decrease caused
by relaxation.
9.5.2 Observations of the SHT
The observations of the assembly process of the SHT provided information on the occurring
damage and cracking. In relation to Figure 113 the damage patterns 1-7 and the crack patterns
a,c and f (Figure 114) have been identified. Next, also frequently leakage has been observed.
It is obvious that from the observations it is concluded that parallel cracking (number d,Figure
114) often appears at 135 and 225 in the third ring after the erection of the ring. This is when
the trumpet shape (see paragraph 9.4.2) is of influence to the lining. At that time no satisfying
explanation could be found for the cracking. Introducing the torque mechanism (see paragraph
9.4.2) these cracks can be explained.
Very often the distance between the TBM shield and the lining became small. Then quality loss
appeared by damages and cracking.
Another obvious observation is about the results of the various assembling teams. The
assembling teams achieved totally different results with regard to delivered quality in respect of
cracking and damages. It is a clear observation that assembling accuracy plays a very important
role in quality control.
At the SHT adaptations have been applied to minimise quality loss through cracking. Analyses
show a large deformation difference across lateral joints. Cracking occurred due to the stringent
sliding tolerances for the concrete dowel and socket system. Two adaptations had been applied
to minimise the deformation differences between adjoining rings:
The increase of the shear resistance by adapting the packing material in the lateral joints.
Plywood plates replaced the bituminous packing materials.
The increase of the free sliding tolerances of the dowel and socket.
The quality loss decreased after applying these adaptations.
9.5.3 Observations of the BRT
The conclusions of the measurements at the SHT were the main reason to establish a new
measurement program at the BRT to investigate the effect of the assembly of the lining. From
the new measurements again it was concluded that normative stresses can occur during
assembly. From the measurements it is now concluded that initial stress levels did not remain
and are nearly invisible in the tangential stress levels at later stages. The measurements also
show a temporary load case during the assembly where stress levels exceed values observed at
the later stages (see chapter 8).
From the observations of the assembly of the BRT it has become clear that damages and
cracking more frequently occurred at the beginning of the project. After a learning period the
frequency of occurrence of damages and cracking decreased. Still quality loss did appear at the
end of the project. Especially cracking parallel to the axial axis kept appearing (Figure 125).
These cracks were initiated during the erection and at the successive excavation. It is expected
that these cracks might appear due to the high jack forces, the lateral contraction and the failing
149
evenness of the supports of the segments. Also torsion of segments due to the trumpet shape of
the lining during the assembly and the excavation could be a reason. From the beginning of the
project it has been attempted to minimise the quality loss by cracks and damages. One of the
measures to mitigate failing evenness of supports is measuring the surface of the lateral joint
before erecting new segments. If the measurements show uneven supports a filling material was
added to minimise unevenness. As a consequence the frequency of cracking and damages
slightly decreased, but still some cracking and damages kept appearing.
Boltpocket
Cracks
Handle hole
Axial direction
Figure 125. Example of crack patterns at the BRT.
Another damage pattern observed in the lining is the edge damage (Figure 113 and Figure 114,
number 3 and g). As a main reason the local contact areas are mentioned. In paragraph 9.4 the
causes for this damage and crack pattern were discussed.
At the time of the erection of a new ring, sometimes damage could be observed in the segments
near the keystone (Figure 113, number 1, 7). Due to the release of the jacks the keystone
sometimes showed elastic response. This keystone is a part of the ring, which is half way out of
the TBM and is therefore loaded by external forces (grout, soil). Due to the elastic response this
ring deforms especially near the keystone. That is the main reason why cracking due to this
mechanism appears near the keystone.
In the completed lining it is often observed that the rings show a repeating stepped deformation.
This deformation appears due to the assembly of new rings against already deformed ones. Also
an amount of nearly 600 spots of leakages were observed. There is not a typical area in a ring
where the leakages are concentrated.
150
9.5.4 Results from the lining in the full-scale test

From the full-scale tests [3] at the Stevin Laboratory of the Delft University of Technology some
general conclusions were drawn:
The assembly stage can play an important a role as the serviceability stage. When
considering safety, both of these stages must always be taken into account. Accurate
assembly is essential, as it is apparent that loss of quality often occurs during the assembly
process.
As stresses are not distributed uniformly over the segmental width, the results must be
interpreted very carefully when modelling a ring with beam elements. The lining
behaviour is complex and three-dimensional, and depends on the load history.
The macro deformation of the lining is affected significantly by longitudinal joint
behaviour. Joint behaviour must be modelled accurately and must always be validated
when interpreting calculation results.
The typical wedge shape of the key segment introduces a complex local behaviour into the
system. This keystone must be taken into account and its design optimised.
Segmental support, jack positioning and jack forces are major factors determining whether
or not cracking and damage will occur. Segment supports are often uneven due to the
deformation of the rings already in place, jacks are not perfectly positioned centrally on
the segment edge, and at the same time the jack forces are very high.
The ring assembly will never produce a perfectly circular shape. Even under laboratory
conditions, the ring is not circular.
Before application of axial and radial forces to a ring, joints display randomly distributed
gaps. These gaps are closed during the first loading steps, at a very low force level. The
initial deformations may differ from practical situations, because they depend heavily on
the accuracy of the assembly process.
Uniformly distributed axial loads result in inward radial displacements. The effect
concentrates near the keystone, probably due to relatively low bending stiffness in that
area. These radial deformations constitute an initial loading effect.
The total radial deformation is the sum of the initial deformations and the perfect radial
deformations due to ovalisation.
The stress distribution in a lining is load-path dependent (loading sequence is critical)
Small eccentricities in the TBM jack alignment are unavoidable. The combination of small
eccentricities and large forces may lead to significant local axial bending moments and,
locally, high stresses in the segments.
The axial deformations of ring joints are not uniformly distributed in relation to the
steering forces. As a consequence, the contact forces in the ring joints are not uniformly
distributed and additional stresses will develop in the segments.
Under an ovalisation load of 2 = 8.25% (which is 8.25% of the amplitude of the uniform
pressure 0), the ring interaction was entirely due to friction between plywood and
concrete. The dowel and socket surface in the ring joint was not activated.
Especially two load cases are of interest regarding a direct relation with exceeding stress levels:
The misalignment experiment.
The forced placement of a tight keystone and the establishment of a ring with a loose
keystone.
1/2 l
151
centre line of
jack force
Ring 3
2 mm steel plates
Ring 1
Figure 126. Artificial misalignment in the full-scale test.
The misalignment experiment (Figure 126) studied the effect of misalignment by introducing
artificial misalignment in the lateral joint by unequal thickness of the packing materials that
support segments in axial direction. It has become obvious that due to this misalignment
immediately cracking occurred.
Figure 127. Forcing the key segment to fit in the ring in the full-scale test.
The experiment of forcing a tight key segment is directly related to the assembling practice. It is
often observed that the key segment is forced to fit. From the measurements it is concluded that
forcing the key segment results in locally very high stress levels. These stress levels can easily
exceed critical values. In case that the longitudinal joints next to the key segment are not well
closed, due to radial loading, segments tend to tilt. In the longitudinal joints local contact areas
occur. The forces are not distributed equally in the longitudinal joints, but are concentrated in
the local contact areas. As a consequence the stress levels are higher compared to an equal
distribution of the forces.
9.6
Conclusions
The goal of the ideal assembling process is to build a perfect round ring without any initial
stresses, well closed joints and equal supports of all segments. Design of the segments and ring
layout intends a perfect system of segments with a perfect round shape of the ring.
The analyses of realised linings show a quality loss due to damage and cracking. Most of the
quality loss occurs during the construction of the lining. It has become clear, with respect to
quality control, that assumptions made at the design time are not always justified during the
construction. To diminish the quality loss during the assembly, verification has to take place to
justify basic assumptions made in the design. Intervention has to take place when the deviation
152
of assumptions will cause quality loss. From the design it has to be clear how to verify the basic
assumptions made and when intervention is required.
From this chapter it is clear that there are many causes that might result in quality loss. The
causes by themselves might result in quality loss, but the causes might also act simultaneously.
10
153
Examples of the additional damage mechanisms
The previous chapter described many causes for damages of the segments. This chapter shows
some examples of additional mechanisms that follow from the causes. These mechanisms result
in stresses that can easily exceed the capacity of the concrete material. This chapter is not an allembracing description of all possible mechanisms, but illustrates the dominance of additional
damage mechanisms on the probability of cracking. In practical design and literature some
standard analyses are carried out for additional damage mechanisms, like the verification of the
strength safety to jack force introduction. This chapter describes non-standard mechanisms
involving torque, additional tangential bending moments, jack forces, uneven supports of
segments and the forced placement of the key segment. Little attention is given to unintentional
local force introductions in the segments. Finally conclusions are drawn based on the examples.
It is noticed that tensile stresses are checked with the strength of the concrete. The strength of
the concrete depends on multi-directional stress situations. Since this chapter illustrates the
predominance of damage mechanisms, just a check is made with the singular tensile strength of
concrete.
10.1
The torsion of segments
Analyses of the deformation of rings during the building process show that an additional
mechanism occurs that causes shear stresses in the segments. This mechanism is called the
torsion of segments. In this paragraph some examples are given of causes of torque mechanisms,
what stresses occur and how crack directions are determined due to the torsion.
10.1.1 Torque mechanism
TBM Shield
TBM jack
Initially round shape
Radial
deformation of
ring due to
grout/soil loading
Segment from
erected ring
Grout loading
Segment radially
deformed
Shape change at top of ring (side view)
TBM Shield
TBM jack
Segment from
erected ring
Grout loading
Segment radially
deformed
Torsion of
segment due to
shape change
Shape change at flank of ring (top view)
Figure 128. Torque of the segments due to shape change when a ring is pushed out of the TBM.
Figure 128 shows the shape change of a ring that is pushed out of the TBM. When the ring is
placed it is assumed that the ring has an initially round shape. It is known that a ring that is
loaded by soil or grout deforms to an ovalising shape. In this example the vertical diameter
decreases and the horizontal diameter increases. This means that the segment at the top of the
154
ring tilts when the shape of the ring changes from initially round to an ovalising shape. At the
side of the ring the same event occurs, but the tilt is in the opposite direction. As a consequence
of the change of the shape the segment between the top and the side of the ring must deform due
to torsional moments. The rotation of the tilted segment is called t (Figure 129). The torsion
rotational angle is related to the radial deformation by
u
'
t = 2
b
where:
t = torsion rotational angle
b
u2
Figure 129. Definition of the rotation angle.
The rotation is zero just between the top and the side of the ring. This torsion occurs over one
eighth of the linings circumference. The torsion rotational angle per unit of length over the
circumference is:
4u
t = 2
br
The torsional moment is:
T = GI t t
where
Ec
1
d
, I t = bd 3 (1 0.6 ) and {d < b}
G=
3
b
2(1 + )
G
= shear modulus of concrete
= poissons ratio of concrete

= torsional or polar moment of inertia
It
b
= total segmental width
The shear stress due to the torsion is:
T
T =
Wt
where
1 2
bd
and {d < b}
Wt = 3
d
1 + 0.6
b
= shear stress due to torsion
T
T
= torsional moment
Wt = elastic section modulus for torsion
155
The shear stress t results in a main tensile stress (if t is the only stress in the material) with a
value equal to the shear stress t. The tensile stress is checked with the concrete strength.
Therefore the limit state is checked by:
T < f chk
Substitution of these equations results in a radial deformation where the shear stresses exceed
the strength of the concrete:
br (1 + )
u 2 < f chk
d2
2 Ec d (1 0.36 2 ) 1
b
which is written as:
br (1 + )
u 2 < f chk
2Ec d
Example of the torque mechanism:
fchk=fbm=4.3N/mm2
r = 4525mm
=0.2
Ec=40000MPa
d=400mm
1500 * * 4525 * (1 + 0.2)
u 2 < 4.3 *
= 3.44mm
2 * 40000 * 400
This means that the radial displacement might only be 3.44mm in order not to exceed the
capacity of the concrete. If the shear stress is compared to the representative tensile strength of
the concrete (e.g. fchk=fbrep=3N/mm2), the radial displacement should not exceed 2.4mm.
If the occurring stress exceeds the limit capacity of the concrete the cracks will occur. Due to the
torsional moment only, the angle of the cracks is -45 (Figure 130).
Crack due to torsion
-45
Figure 130. crack (direction) due to the torsion of a segment.
The polar moment of inertia It until now is based on the full area of the segment (b*d). In the
segments there are boltholes and handle holes. These holes reduce the effective surface of the
concrete. In [1] an analysis is carried out on these reduced areas. Table 26 shows several polar
moments of inertia (It) and the maximum shear stresses in several parts of the segments. Table
27 shows the results for the acceptable deformation u2 for these areas. It is obvious that the full
area of the concrete is normative for the analysis. In this case the polar moment of inertia is the
highest, which results in the highest shear stresses.
In the shown example the torsional moment is the only force that causes cracks. In the real
building process there is always the influence of the axial jack forces. The following paragraph
156
shows an example how to deal with the stresses due to the jack forces in relation to the torque
problem and how the jack stresses influence the crack direction in the segments.
Table 26. Rotational stiffness and maximum shear stresses [1].
Full area
Area with bold holes
Area with 1 handle hole
It
26.9*109
18.4*109
19.7*109
12.4*109
T,max
T/69*106
T/48.8*106
T/51.8*106
T/37*106
Table 27. Radial deformations where cracking starts for the several areas in the segments.
Full area
Area with bold holes
fchk=fbm=4.3N/mm2
u2 crack
3.44mm
3.64mm
3.62mm
4.10mm
fchk=fbrep=3N/mm2
u2 crack
2.40mm
2.54mm
2.52mm
2.86mm
10.1.2 Torque mechanism including the influence of axial jack forces.

y - direction
Fax
yy
yx
xy
xx
x - direction
(A)
(B)
Figure 131. (A) Segment with axial jack forces and torsional moments. (B) Definition of stresses.
From the previous paragraph it is known that the torque causes shear stresses that result in main
tensile stresses. Figure 131(A) shows a segment with the torsional moment and the presence of
the axial jack forces. This example analyses a spot in the middle of the segment. In Figure
131(B) the definition of the stresses is given. The axial forces will cause a compressive stress yy
in the y-direction. Due to the lateral contraction a tensile stress occurs in the perpendicular
direction (x-direction). If this tensile stress exceeds the strength of the concrete (without
presence of the torsional moment) then cracks occur in the vertical direction (perpendicular to
the main tensile stresses). The previous paragraph shows that due to torsion only the crack
direction is -45 . The cracks that result from the addition of the axial forces and the torsional
moment are between the y-direction (vertical direction in the figure) and -45 .
This paragraph describes how to determine the value and direction of the maximum tensile
stress due to given stresses in x- and y direction (due the axial jacks) and the torsional moment
by use of Mohrs circle (Figure 132).
157
yx
y-direction
yy, yx
direction of
main stress 1
direction of
main stress 2
1
2
xx, yy
r
xx, xy
x-direction
xy
Figure 132. Mohr's circle.
Mohrs circle gives the relation between xx, yy, xy, yx and the main stresses 1 and 2 where
2 is the highest compressive stress and 1 the lowest compressive stress (or highest tensile
stress when the value is positive). The shear stresses xy and yx have an equal value called s.
The angle r gives the angle in which the main stress 1 directs. The crack direction is
perpendicular to the direction of this main tensile stress. The main tensile stress 1 is checked
with the concrete capacity fchk.
The equation for the relation between the main stresses 1,2 and the stresses xx, yy and s is
easily determined from Figure 132:
1
1
1, 2 = ( xx + yy )
( xx yy ) 2 + s2
2
4
The angle r is:
s
tan r =
1 yy
As mentioned the crack direction is perpendicular to this angle r.
Example:
It is assumed that the stresses in x- and y-direction due the jack forces are yy = -10N/mm2 and
xx = 2N/mm2. The main tensile stress is checked with the representative tensile capacity of the
concrete fchk = fbrep = 3N/mm2.
The tensile stress 1 should not exceed fchk:
1
1
1
1
( xx yy ) 2 + s2 3 (2 10) +
(2 + 10) 2 + s2
f chk ( xx + yy ) +
2
4
2
4
s 3.61N / mm 2
This means that the shear stress due to the torsion should be smaller than s3.61N/mm2 not to
exceed the tensile stress capacity of the concrete. This value is higher than in the case without
the presence of the axial forces (s3N/mm2). The deformation u2 is derived in a similar way as
in the previous paragraph.
158
br (1 + )
2Ec d
1500 * 4525 * (1 + 0.2)
u 2 < 3.61
= 2.89mm
2 * 40000 * 400
The value of u2 without the presence of the axial forces was 2.40mm.
u 2 < f chk
The direction of the main tensile stress is obtained from 1, yy and s.

3.61
tan r =
r = 15.5
3 + 10
this means that the cracks occur in the direction perpendicular to this angle: 15.5-90=-75.5 . The
axial forces change the crack direction from -45 (case without axial forces) to 75.5 . The
cracks are more directed in the direction of the high compressive stresses (Figure 133).
Fax
-45
Crack due to torsion only
-75.5
Crack due to torsion
and axial jack forces
Figure 133. Crack direction in the case without and with the presence of the axial jack forces.
10.2
The uneven supports of the segments in the lateral joints
The assembly process results in a sequence of axial loading on the segments. When a segment is
situated to its position the jacks are activated to load the segment to fit it in place. In the ideal
situation the jack forces are directly transmitted to the nearest support. In a statically
indeterminate support system of the segments (e.g. three supports or more) the supports must be
perfectly in line to be able to transfer the jack forces directly. In the case of uneven supports (e.g.
one support of three is not in line), the jack forces are not transmitted directly to the underneath
support and cause additional stresses in the segment, by bending and torque. The structural
problem is three-dimensional. This paragraph describes some examples to show how to analyse
uneven supports and their consequences..
10.2.1 Uneven support at one side of the segment
In a normal assembling process the segment is positioned to the supports. The middle and right
jacks are activated and load the segment. When the adjoining segment is placed, the outer most
left jack is also activated. Figure 134 illustrates the problem in this example of uneven support.
At point A the support is not in line with the supports of B and C. The jacks in B and C are
already activated (called old Fax). Now the jack at A is activated (called new Fax). The jack
force in A is not transferred to support A because this support is not in line. The jack force from
A is transferred to the other supports. The top view in Figure 134 now shows that the new jack
force in A causes a torsion and tangential moment in B and C. The segments equilibrium of
force requires a reaction force. This reaction force is generated in C. This example just shows
how to analyse the forces and stresses in B. It is assumed that the required reaction forces can
159
occur. This is not checked in this example. The following paragraph shows an example on how
those checks should be carried out.
new Fax
Tangential arm: atg
old Fax
B
RT RM
bp
A
Torsion arm: aT
RM
C
RT
Required
reaction force
(friction
under jack
shoe)
segment
RM
A
Uneven
support
Top view
RT
Front view
Figure 134. Illustration of the uneven support when the left support is not in line with the middle and right support.
The angle p (Figure 134) is the angle between the axial force introductions. Assume that the
axial jack shoe has a width bp, the ring has n segments and that the radius is r. The angle p is:
bp
1
) * 360
tan p = (
2n 2r
The tangential arm atg is:
atg = r sin p
The torsion arm aT is:
aT = r (1 cos p )
The torque in point B due to the new Fax is:
TB = Fax aT
The tangential bending in point B due to the new Fax is:
M tgB = Fax atg
There is a shear force in point B due to the new Fax:
VB = Fax
This analysis shows that the uneven support results in an additional force in point B. The forces
are the torsional moment, tangential bending moment and shear force.
new Fax
old Fax
yy
yx
xy
segment
Mtg
Uneven
support
Front view
Figure 135. Location of the analysed point for the stresses.
xx
160
The total shear stress is the addition of the stresses due to the shear force and the torsional
moment:
xy = yx = V + T
The stress yy is the compression stress due to the axial force. The stress xx is the stress due to
the lateral contraction of the concrete material: xx = -yy.
Example for the uneven support
The ring has n=7 segments, has a radius r=4525mm and a jack shoe width bp=500mm.
bp
1
tan p = (
) * 360 p = 19.38
2n 2r
atg = r sin p = 1501mm
aT = r (1 cos p ) = 256mm
The axial jacks have a force of 1000kN.
TB = Fax aT = 256kNm
M tgB = Fax atg = 1500kNm
VB = Fax = 1000kN
Assume that the axial force results in a compressive stress in vertical direction of 2.5MPa, then
yy=-2.5MPa. The lateral contraction is 0.2: xx=0.5MPa. Due to the torsional moment the
shear stress is:
T
256
t = B =
= 3.72MPa
Wt 68.9
with
1 2
bd
Wt = 3
= 68.9 *10 6 mm 3
d
1 + 0.6
b
The shear force results in the shear stress:
V
1000 *10 3
V = B =
= 1.67 MPa
bd 1500 * 400
The total shear force is:
xy = yx = V + T = 1.67 + 3.72 = 5.39MPa
With Mohrs circle the maximum tensile stress is calculated:
1
1
2
1 = ( xx + yy ) +
( xx yy ) 2 + xy
2
4
1
1
1 = (0.5 2.5) +
(0.5 + 2.5) 2 + 5.39 2 = 4.59MPa
2
4
161
If the maximum tensile stress is checked with fbrep= 3MPa, then it is concluded that the segment
cracks. The crack starts when the maximum tensile stress exceeds fbrep. The stress xy is at that
moment:
1
1
2
(0.5 + 2.5) 2 + xy xy = 3.71MPa
f brep = 3 = (0.5 2.5) +
4
2
The direction of the maximum tensile stress is:
s
3.71
tan r =
=
p = 34
1 yy 3 + 2.5
The direction of the crack is perpendicular to the direction of the maximum tensile stress and is 56 (Figure 136).
new Fax
old Fax
Torsion and -62

bending crack
-56
Torque crack
Un-smooth
support
Front view (from

inside the tunnel)
Figure 136. Crack spots and directions due to bending and torque.
The tangential bending moment might also initiate cracks. The maximum tangential tensile
stress (at the top of the segment, just left of the middle axial forces) is calculated by:
M tg
1500 *10 6
t =
=
= 10 MPa
1
W
* 400 *1500 2
6
In the area with the maximum tangential bending stress, there are also stresses due to torsional
moment and the shear force. In this analysis of the top of the segment just left of the middle
axial jack force shoe, the stress in xx-direction (xx) is 10MPa, while yy=0, and
xy=yx=5.39MPa. The maximum tensile stress:
1
1
1 = (10 + 0) +
(10 0) 2 + 5.39 2 = 12.35MPa
2
4
This very high tensile stress occurs at the upper side of the segment just next to the jack shoe.
The direction of the main tensile stress is:
s
5.39
tan r =
=
p = 28
1 yy
10
The direction of the crack is -62 (Figure 136).
The stress analysis shows that the first crack is situated just next to the middle jack shoe. At this
spot the tensile strength of the concrete is reached first. The crack is not only due to bending (the
crack direction is not vertical), but also due to torque and has an angle of -62 with the
horizontal direction.
162
10.2.2 Uneven support in the middle of the segment

Torsion
Torsion arm: arm: aT,BC
aT,AC
new Fax
B
RT
C
bp
RM
RT
Required
reaction force
(friction
under jack
shoe)
segment
RM
A
B
Uneven
support
RM
segment
RT
Front view
Top view
2F
2F
B
A
A
RA=5/8F
B
Structural model
C
RC=11/8F
Figure 137. Illustration and structural model when the middle support of a segment is omitted.
In this case the middle supports are omitted (Figure 137). On the left side of the segment the
jack force is not present. The equilibrium of vertical forces is realised by both vertical supports
near the longitudinal joints (A and C). As a consequence the segment tilts if there is no reaction
force. This force might be generated under the jack shoe of the outermost right jack (C). The
compensation force of this reaction force is found in the outermost right support. The left side of
the segment is not held and will twist. It is assumed that the right side is rigidly fit (e.g. the right
side of the segment can not move or rotate). This basic assumption should be checked.
bp
1
) * 360
tan p = (
2n 4r
The torsion arm from B to C aT, BC is:
aT , BC = r (1 cos p )
The torsion arm from A to C aT, AC is:
aT , AC = r (1 cos(2 p ))
The torsion arm from A to B, aT, AB is equal to aT, BC.
The moment due to the torque in point C is:
TC = R A aT , AC 2 Fax aT , BC
The moment due to the torque in point B is:
TB = R A aT , AB
The tangential bending moment in B is:
M tg , B = R A r sin p
163
The tangential bending moment in C is:

M tg ,C = R A r sin( 2 p ) 2 Fax r sin p
The shear force in point B is:
VB = RC or VB = R A
The shear force in point C is:
VC = RC
The torque moment by the Fax is fully compensated on the right side of the segment (C) by the
reaction forces under the jack shoe and the support. The required reaction force RTC is:
T
RTC = C
b
The tangential bending moment by the Fax is fully compensated on the right side of the segment
(C) by the reaction forces under the jack shoe and the support. The required reaction force RMC
is:
M tgC
RMC =
b
Of course it must be possible to generate these reaction forces. The maximum shear force Rmax
under the jack shoe is:
Rmax = Fax
The factor is the coefficient of friction between the jack shoe and the segment. If one of the
reaction forces R exceeds Rmax the segment slips under the jacks shoe. If RMC exceeds Rmax then
the tangential direction is not fitted in C. The segments position is still stable. If RTC exceeds
Rmax then the torsion rotation is not fitted in C. The segment tilts and is not stable anymore. The
tilt continues until the support at B is re-established.
There is a shear force in point C due to the new Fax:
V = Fax
Example
1
500
) * 360
2 * 7 4 4525
= 1467kNm
tan p = (
M tg ,C
p = 22.55
1467 *10 6
= 978kN
1500
b
Rmax = Fax = 0.4 *1000 = 400kN
The reaction force RMC exceeds the maximum value Rmax. The maximum tangential bending
moment in C is:
M tg ,C = 400 *10 3 *1500 = 600kNm
RMC =
M tgC
The vertical reaction forces in the static system are determined by use of the static system in
Figure 138.
164
2F
MtgC=Faxb
A
Structural model for

tangential direction
RA
RC
Figure 138. Determining the vertical reaction forces.
RA =
M tgC + 2 Fax r sin p

r sin( 2 p )
= 896kN
RB = 1104kN
aT , BC = r (1 cos p ) = 346mm
aT , AC = r (1 cos(2 p )) = 1330.8mm
TC = R A aT , AC 2 Fax aT , BC = 896 *10 3 * 1330.8 2 * Fax * 346 = 500kNm
TB = R A aT , AB = 896 *10 3 * 346 = 310kNm
M tg , B = R A r sin p = 896 * 10 3 * 4525 * sin 22.55 = 1555kNm
VB = VC = RC = 1104kN
VB = R A = 896kN
TC 500 * 10 6
=
= 333kN
1500
b
It is assumed that the coefficient of friction is =0.4. The maximum shear force Rmax under the
jack shoe is:
Rmax = Fax = 0.4 * 1000 = 400kN
The reaction force R is smaller than Rmax so the segment does not tilt.
R=
Check the stresses in C, with the presence of the axial forces.

Assume that the axial force in C results in a compressive stress in vertical direction of 2.5MPa,
then
yy=-2.5MPa
The lateral contraction is 0.2, then:
xx=0.5MPa
Due to the torque the shear stress is:
T
500
t = C =
= 7.25MPa
Wt 68.9
VC 1104 *10 3
=
= 1.84MPa
bd 1500 * 400
= yx = V + T = 1.84 + 7.25 = 9.09MPa
V =
xy
1 =
1
1
(0.5 2.5) +
(0.5 + 2.5) 2 + 9.09 2 = 10.71MPa
2
4
165
It turns out that the maximum tensile stresses exceed the strength of the concrete significantly.
The direction of the main tensile stress is:
s
9.09
tan r =
=
p = 35
1 yy 10.71 + 2.5
The direction of the crack when it is initiated is again -55 (Figure 139).
new Fax
bending and -51
torsion crack
bending and
torsion crack
Torque crack -55

-65
Uneven
support
Front view (from
inside the tunnel)
Figure 139. Illustration of the directions of the cracks.
The tangential bending moment in C results in the elastic tensile stress of:
M tg ,C
600 *10 6
C =
=
= 4 MPa
W
150 *10 6
In the analysis xx=4MPa, yy=0 and xy=yx=9.09MPa
1
1
1 = (4 + 0) +
(4 0) 2 + 9.09 2 = 11.3MPa
2
4
This means that a bending crack occurs at the topside of the segment in C. The direction of the
main tensile stress is:
s
9.09
tan r =
=
p = 39
1 yy 11.3 0
The crack direction is -51
Check the value in B at the lower side of the segment.
Due to the torque the shear stress is:
T
310
t = B =
= 4.50MPa
Wt 68.9
V = 1.84MPa
xy = yx = V + T = 1.84 + 4.50 = 6.34MPa

1555 * 10 6
= 10.37 MPa
W
150 * 10 6
In the analysis xx=10.37MPa, yy=0 and xy=yx=6.34MPa
1
1
1 = (10.37 + 0) +
(10.37 0) 2 + 6.34 2 = 13.38MPa
2
4
s
6.34
tan r =
=
p = 25
1 yy 13.38 0
B =
M tg , B
166
The crack direction is -65
If the first cracks occur when fbrep=3MPa is exceeded, based on the above analysis, this would be
when the axial jack forces are Fax=3/13.38*1*106=224kN. The first cracks appears at the lower
side of the segment in point B. From a frame analysis it has turned out that the displacement of
point B due to Fax=224kN is only 1.26mm. This means that this mechanism results in cracks
when the uneven support is only 1.26mm. Of course there is the basic assumption that the
torsion rotation in C is fixed, which in reality is not really true because of the limited stiffness of
the adjoining segment. Nevertheless this example case illustrates a mechanism that could easily
result in cracks.
10.2.3 Conclusion on uneven support crack mechanisms
This paragraph shows two examples of uneven supports in a statically indeterminate supported
structural system with axial jack forces. It turns out that a three dimensional mechanism occurs
that results in additional tangential bending moments and torsional moments. A stress analysis
with Mohrs circle is used to calculate the value and direction of the main tensile stresses in the
concrete. It is illustrated that cracks might easily occur due to uneven supports. Especially the
influence of the torque result in a better understanding of the crack direction that is often
observed in practice.
10.3
The forced placement of the key segment

A
P1
P0
Figure 140. Overview of forces when the key segment is forced to fit.
Figure 140 shows the adjoining segment to the key segment with the forces that act on this
segment when the key segment does not fit exactly in the available space. Due to the wedged
shape of the key segment the acting axial jack force on the key segment results in the tangential
component F. In the full-scale test it is observed that predominantly the directly adjoining
segments are deforming due to the forced placement of the key segment. It is observed that the
adjoining segment rotates around the longitudinal joint A-A (Figure 140). As a consequence
there will be a ring interaction with the coupling forces P1 and P2. This mechanism is described
in this paragraph. The results are compared with measured values from the full-scale test.
10.3.1 Analytical rotation model description of the pushed key segment
Figure 141 shows the static model that is used to estimate the behaviour of the total mechanism.
The acting forces are assumed to give the equilibrium for the bending moments around hinge A.
167
It is in this solution assumed that the forces act in a 2D system and that the influence of the
rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints is minimal:
M ( A) = 0
The contribution of the acting force F to the bending moment in point A is:
M F = Fr (1 cos )
The contribution of the coupling forces to the bending moment in A is:
M p 0 = P0 r sin
M p1 = P1 r sin( / 2)
It is known that the coupling forces are actually springs with the following assumed behaviour:
P0 = k 0 u 0
P1 = k1u1
u0
sin(/2).r
ut
u1
r.(1-cos)
P0
P1
A
r
sin.r
Figure 141. Static model of the forced placement of the key segment.
If the bending stiffness of the segment is assumed to be infinite, then the displacement u0 and u1
are directly related by:
sin( / 2)
cos( / 2)
u1 = u 0 A and A =
sin
The solution for the equilibrium of the bending moments results in:
sin( / 2)
cos( / 2) sin( / 2)
k 0 sin + k1
sin
F = u0
1 cos
This means that the acting force is linearly related to the displacement u0. Most interesting is the
tangential displacement ut as a function of the acting force F. Therefore the relation between the
radial displacement u0 and the tangential displacement ut is determined:
sin
u0 = ut
1 cos
The total equation is now:
k sin 2 + k1 cos( / 2) sin 2 ( / 2)
F = ut 0
(1 cos ) 2
where:
= tangential displacement
ut
168
This equation gives the direct relation of the force that is necessary to create the space to fit the
key segment. The acting force F is actually an additional tangential normal force. As a
consequence there will be a compression deformation. The displacement by the compression is:
N=F
Fr
sin
uc =
EA
where:
= compressive deformation
uc
The acting forces F, P0 and P1 result in tangential bending moments in the segment. The total
bending moments are the summation of the parts:
M = M F + M p 0 + M p1
for 0<</2
M ( ) = Fr (1 cos ) P0 r sin
for /2<<
)
2
From these tangential moments the additional displacement by bending of the segment can be
determined. This will not be done here. But in the following example a comparison is made of
the equations with results of a frame analysis that do involve the bending stiffness and the
influence of the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints.
M ( ) = Fr (1 cos ) P0 r sin P1r sin(
10.3.2 Example of a forced placement of the key segment

In this example the geometry of the BRT is applied. The ring is divided into seven sectors. It is
assumed that the segment applies to one sector:
=360/7=51.42
It has to be found what the necessary acting force is to force the segment to fit into a too narrow
space of 1mm at each side of the key segment. Assume ut=1mm. The coupling stiffness is
assumed to be kv=1*105N/mm and k0=k1=kv. From the tangential displacement the radial
displacement u0 is directly found:
sin
u0 = ut
= 2.07 * 1 = 2.07 mm
1 cos
And the necessary acting force F is:
k sin 2 + k1 cos( / 2) sin 2 ( / 2)
F = ut 0
= 5.51 * k v * u t = 5.51 * 1 * 10 5 *1 = 551kN
(1 cos ) 2
The radial displacement u0 is:
sin( / 2)
cos( / 2) = 0.5
A=
sin
u 0 = 0.5 * 2.07 = 1.035
The coupling forces are:
P0 = 2.07 *1 *10 5 = 207kN
P1 = 1.035 * 1 *10 5 = 104kN
In addition to the rotation mechanism, the displacement due to normal compression occurs:
169
555 *10 3 * 4525

Fr
sin =
. sin(51.42) = 0.08mm
40000 * 1500 * 400
EA
When both the rotational mechanism and the normal compression are integrated the acting force
is:
1mm
F=
= 514kN
0.08
1
+
555 555
As a result the radial displacement is u0=1.91mm. In the following paragraph these values are
compared with the results of the frame analysis.
uc =
Tangential bending moment
100
50
Analytical
0
0
10
20
30
-50
40
50
LD rotation
LD +EA
LD +EI
LD +lt
-100
-150
-200
phi [degrees]
Figure 142. The tangential bending moments due to a forced placement of the key segment, when the available
space is too small (1mm at each side of the key segment).
10.3.3 Results of the frame analysis
Figure 143. geometry in the frame analysis.
170
The created model in the frame analysis (Figure 143) has the same geometry as shown in Figure
141. Four cases are determined:
1
Only the rotation mechanism.
2
In addition the influence of the normal stiffness of the segment.
3
In addition the influence of the bending stiffness of the segment.
4
In addition the influence of the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints.
The loading is fitted to result into the tangential displacement of ut=1mm. The results of the
frame analyses are given in Table 28.
From Table 28 it is observed that case 1 shows results that agree with the analytical formulation
in the previous paragraph. The placement of the key segment enforces a tangential displacement
of ut = 1mm. The necessary tangential force is 565kN. As a consequence the maximum
tangential bending moment is 167kNm. Figure 142 shows the development of the tangential
bending moments due to the forced placement of the key segment for the several cases. It is
obvious that the analytical approach of the rotation mechanisms agrees very well with the frame
analysis for the rotation mechanism.
The influence of the normal stiffness (case 2, +EA) does not show a large influence. The
tangential bending stiffness shows a dominant influence. The required tangential force decreases
while the occurring tangential bending moment has only half the value. The influence of the
rotational stiffness is noticeable but not dominant.
Table 28. Results of the frame analyses to analyse the forced placement of the key segment.
case
1
2
3
4
F is fit to
ut=1mm
rotation
mechanism
+EA
+EI
+lt
ut
[mm]
1
u0
[mm]
2.08
Required
F [kN]
565
P0
[kN]
208
P1
[kN]
115
Mmax
[kNm]
167
M
[MPa]
4.2
1
1
1
1.88
1.27
1.32
512
410
447
188
127
132
105
125
122
151
88
88
3.7
2.2
2.2
If the tangential force is introduced at half the segmental width (750mm), the well distributed
normal compressive stress would have the following values:
Average maximum normal stresses: 550kN/(1500*400)=0.92MPa compression.
Average minimum normal stresses: 447kN/(1500*400)=0.75MPa compression.
In the following paragraph the tangential stresses are analysed that are caused by a forced
placement of the key segment. A comparison is made with measurements from the full-scale
tests at the Delft University of Technology. It will turn out that the eccentric introduction plays
an important role in the stress development.
171
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4
500
1000
1500
Axial force on key segment

k
upper
lower
middle
edge
edge
Figure 144. The development of the tangential normal

stresses as a function of the axial jack force, at the
upper edge, the middle of the segment and at the lower
edge of the segment.
tg stress [MPa]
tg stress [MPa]
10.3.4 Results of the full-scale test and the comparison with other models
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
500
1500
1000
Axial force on key segment [kN]
upper
edge
middle
lower
edge
Figure 145. The development of the tangential bending

tensile stresses as a function of the axial jack force, at the
upper edge, the middle of the segment and at the lower
edge of the segment.
The forced displacement of ut=1mm agrees with one of the full-scale tests. In this section an
overview is given of the measured data of that test.
The maximum measured tangential bending stresses, in the segment next to the key segment, are
about 5MPa (Figure 145). The maximum measured normal compression stresses are about
3MPa and the maximum measured normal tensile stresses are about 1MPa (Figure 144).
The average normal stresses are compression stresses with an average value of about 1MPa. The
average tangential bending stresses are about 2.8MPa. Both the tangential normal and bending
stresses are non-uniformly distributed over the segmental width. At the side of the ring with ring
interaction, the highest values for the stresses are found. The average values are of the same
order of magnitude as the predicted values. The radial displacements confirm each other. It is
obvious that the local stress distribution is non-uniform. The highest measured total tensile
stresses are about 2MPa.
1MPa
Segmental width
1/3b
F
-3MPa
Figure 146. Eccentricity of the force F, derived from the measured values.
From the measured data the eccentricity is determined. The eccentricity is about 1/3 of the
segmental width.
From the predicted values an estimation is made of the maximum tensile stresses. The predicted
normal force is assumed to have an eccentricity of 1/3 of the segmental width (Figure 146). The
maximum tensile stress due to the normal stresses is now 1MPa. In the test set up the segments
172
are able to tilt. This is not allowed in the calculation. Therefore there is a discrepancy between
the results.
M=0
F
P1
P0
Figure 147. The three dimensional influence of the coupling on the tangential bending moments. The tangential
bending moments are assumed to be equal to zero at the upper side of the segment.
The average tangential bending moment of the segmental width is the predicted value. So the
predicted tangential bending stresses are the average values over the segmental width. Because
of the asymmetric introduction of the coupling forces and the acting force F, the distribution of
the tangential bending stresses is not uniform over the segmental width. At the upper edge it is
assumed that the tangential bending stresses are equal to zero (this is confirmed by the
measurements). As a consequence the maximum tangential bending stresses are twice the
predicted average value. At the compression zone at the lower side over the segment the
maximum tensile stress will be, due to the results of the frame analyses in the previous
paragraph:
3*-0.75MPa + 2*2.2MPa=2.2MPa
This value can be compared with the results of the measurements. The normal stress is 3MPa
and the maximum tangential bending stress is 5MPa. As a consequence the maximum occurred
tensile stress is 2MPa, which is in accordance with the previous value.
Due to the rotational mechanism only the maximum tensile stress is, due to the results of the
frame analyses in the previous paragraph:
3*-0.92MPa+2*4.1MPa=5.44MPa
This value is considerably higher than the measured value.
The result of the model including the normal and bending stiffness and the rotational stiffness
agrees with the measured values. The solution of the rotational mechanism only is an upper
bound for the results.
10.3.5 Conclusions to the forced placement of the key segment
It is clear that the available space for the key segment is very important. Only a very small
discrepancy between the necessary and the available space to place the segment might result in
the occurrence of tensile stresses that exceed the capacity of the concrete. A forced placement of
the key segment should therefore be avoided.
173
The presented rotational analytical model gives an upper bound for the occurring forces. The
approach is very simple, but the effect of the forced placement of the key segment can be very
important. It is therefore concluded that the simulation of the forced placement of the key
segment should be done in a detailed design with more accurate models (like FEM). At least the
detailed design should make clear what tolerances are allowable in the available space for the
key segment.
10.4
Discussion of other damage mechanisms
The previous chapter described many causes for damages of the segments. The previous
paragraphs showed some examples on how to deal with the analyses of mechanisms for
damages. The following paragraphs briefly explain some other mechanisms.
10.4.1 Jack force introduction
Fax
Main compressive and tensile

stress spots
tensile stress spots
compressive stress spots
Expected spots and direction

of cracks due to jack forces
Expected spots and direction

of cracks influenced by torsion
Figure 148. Illustration of stress paths and crack areas due to the jack forces.
Figure 148 shows an illustration of the stress development in a segment loaded by axial jack
forces. There are main compressive and tensile stress areas in a segment. The tensile stress areas
might result in cracking which are oriented in the direction of the jack forces. The direction of
the cracks changes to the diagonal direction when the torque occurs.
10.4.2 Local introduction of forces
It the previous chapter some causes for damages described might result in local introduction of
forces in the segment (Figure 149) where it is assumed in design that these forces are introduced
with an equal distribution. An example of this phenomenon is the introduction of the tangential
normal force in the segment. In the design it is mostly assumed that the longitudinal joints are
well closed and that the tangential normal force is introduced along the total area of the
longitudinal joint. A consequence of, for example, the misalignment of a segment, the trumpet
shape, the uneven support or size imperfections of the segment is that this force is introduced in
one single spot of the longitudinal joint that is much smaller than the total longitudinal joint
area. As a consequence the stress in this spot is very high. Around the spot easily tensile stresses
might occur (Figure 149).
174
Local force introduction area
Expected spots and direction of cracks

influenced by local force introduction
Figure 149. Illustration of the local force introduction.
Another consequence is the decrease of the rotational stiffness of this longitudinal joint, since
only a small part of the longitudinal joint is contributing to the rotational stiffness. Locally the
ring shows a very reduced bending stiffness, which again influences the coupling forces, which
are expected to have higher values in this case.
10.5
Conclusions
This chapter describes some examples of mechanisms that contribute to the generation of
stresses in the segments. These mechanisms are mostly not implemented in the so-called ring
models. Therefore additional analyses have to be carried out to analyse these mechanisms. It
turns out that the additional mechanisms might result in high tensile stresses that cause cracks in
the concrete. The mechanisms result in crack directions that are often observed in practice. The
mostly three-dimensional mechanisms enhance the understanding on why cracks so easily occur
during the assembling stage of the lining.
Since the mechanisms so easily result in cracking, the best solution is to avoid the occurrence of
the mechanisms. The main driving forces for the cracks are torsional moments, additional
tangential moments, shear forces and high axial forces.
The uneven supports should be avoided by not choosing for the statically indeterminate
supported segments. The shape change of rings when they are pushed out of the TBM should be
minimised by optimising the TBM shield length or minimising the deformation of the rings
behind the TBM. An accurate assembly of the ring should avoid the forced placement of the key
segment.
The high jack forces from the TBM have the main influence on the stresses in the segments.
Minimising the jack forces might result in a less sensitive lining for the jack forces.
Although this chapter describes examples of additional damage mechanisms, there are many
more mechanisms that can cause damage to the lining. This chapter illustrated the importance of
the additional damage mechanism analysis. A design of the lining requires an extended analysis
of mechanisms that might cause damage. Overall it is best to avoid the occurrence of the
mechanisms by well consideration of design choices and verification of the design choices in
relation to the additional damage mechanisms.
11
175
Design philosophy
The goal of an optimal lining design is a functional structure for the considered lifetime within
acceptable risks and the lowest costs. Since the volume of applied concrete in the structure is of
major influence on the direct project costs, optimisation is often thought to be found in the
thinner lining.
11.1
The basic considerations of the design philosophy
A tunnel is known as a geotechnical construction. This means that the segmented concrete lining
interacts with the soil. The structure involves the disciplines of structural and geotechnical
engineering. During the construction of the lining there is also the influence on the lining of the
TBM. This involves mechanical engineering. During the design and construction of the tunnel
the three main disciplines are strongly interrelated (Figure 150). During the serviceability stage
the mechanical engineering is not directly involved.
Structural engineering
(concrete)
Lining design
Mechanical engineering
(TBM)
Geotechnical engineering
(soil)
Figure 150. Three disciplines in the lining design.
It is obvious that the mechanical engineering component influences the lining during the
assembling. Nevertheless the mechanical part is also of influence on the lining in the
serviceability stage. During the assembly the TBM causes forces, deformations and probably
cracking to the concrete. The forces and deformations might still influence the design forces in
the serviceability stage, while cracking causes a decrease in the strength of the concrete earlier
than predicted. On the other hand the TBM is influencing the soil, which supports the lining in
the serviceability stage. The mechanical part is also of influence on the serviceability stage.
Since the assembly of the lining is just a temporary stage this should not be the normative stage
for the structural design. In the optimal design of the lining, the construction stage is a nonnormative stage. This might mean one of the following two:
The assembly is of minor influence on the serviceability stage, such that it can be
neglected in the design in the serviceability stage. The normative stage is the serviceability
stage.
The assembly is of major influence on the serviceability stage and cannot be neglected in
the design of the serviceability stage. The normative stage is still the serviceability stage.
The assembly should not cause negative additions in the serviceability stage. The assembly
should perform with e.g.:
176
-

No cracking of the concrete that influences the strength of the concrete.
No additional / remaining forces that increase the design loads in the serviceability stage.
No additional deformations that influence the functionality or behaviour of the lining in
the serviceability stage.
From the three disciplines in the lining design, two can be directly handled in the design choices:
mechanical and structural engineering. The soil conditions are more the boundary condition in
which the other disciplines perform. Therefore the optimisation of the design is primarily done
within the fields of the mechanical and structural engineering.
Based on the aforementioned considerations the optimal design is actually the following:
The lining is designed for the serviceability stage without any consideration of the
assembly.
Consequently the construction method is determined such that it does not result in any
negative addition to the serviceability stage.
At present the lining designs and the construction method result in verifiable negative additions
to the serviceability stage (e.g. cracking of the concrete segments). As shown in chapter 2 the
observed linings are not an optimal design due to the influence of the construction method. The
applied construction method is a proven method, but results in a negative influence on the
conditions of the lining. The optimisation of the TBM, which is mainly in the field of
mechanical engineering, is expected to result in far less negative influences on the lining.
During the design of the lining an analysis of the assembly should focus on the following
questions:
What are the possible negative influences to the lining?
Are they major influences and are they remaining and negative additions to the
serviceability stage?
If the second question is positively answered then optimisation takes place by adapting the lining
design or construction method. The adaptations mean that alternative design choices are made.
Actually the design consists of many design choices. As a consequence the lining design and
construction method result in many alternative possibilities. The optimal alternative follows
from the optimal alternative in the serviceability stage that has a minimum negative addition
from the assembly. Therefore the deliberation of the optimum lining design should always
consider the construction method.
The analysis of the assembly is actually a risk analysis. The risk analysis includes the following
events in a loop:
Risk identification (what influence).
Risk ranking (is it important).
Analysis of the mechanism (is it remaining and additional).
Mitigation measure (on what control parameter can the risk be mitigated).
During the design of the lining the above risk analysis should always be applied. The design is
an iterative process. During the iteration process the design is optimised. From the risk analysis
it is known what risks are important and what control parameters are available to influence the
177
risk. Therefore the building process should include the monitoring of the satisfactory control
parameters of the risks. If it is found that a control parameter exceeds a critical value then
intervention must take place to minimise or lower the risk.
Especially the risk identification is very important. Extended research is necessary during the
design to trace the risks, especially when the tunnel is constructed in conditions in which
experience is absent. The soft soil conditions are quite new in the lining design. This brings
different conditions in which the lining is constructed. As observations showed, the lining
behaves very often different from that what is predicted. This mostly means that mechanisms
occur that are not known or not considered. When such mechanisms occur, an analysis should
be carried out to be able to rank the risk. Eventually mitigation might be necessary.
11.2
Design parameters for a segmented concrete lining
To design the lining itself, the parameters must be categorised to analyse the structure. This
paragraph gives an overview of the main parameters in the design process of the lining itself. To
design the lining in the serviceability stage the geometry, the loading and the support conditions
have to be known. The geometry describes the concrete lining itself. The soil loading and the
soil support are the main conditions in the serviceability stage. Next the determined geometry is
checked for the construction method. For the assembly some main parameters are shown, which
are known to have a main influence on the lining.
Main geometrical parameters:
Number of segments in a ring.
The thickness (d) and width (b) of the segments, and the Youngs modulus (Ec) of the
concrete.
The thickness of the contact area in the longitudinal joint (lt).
The position and type of the lateral couplings.
The stiffness of the lateral couplings (k).
The layout of the segments (e.g. masonry layout).
Main serviceability loading and support parameters (normal load case):
Soil loading.
Soil support.
Axial pre-stressing.
Main assembly parameters:
Jacks:
Positions.
Magnitude.
Grouting (uplift loading case):
Pressures.
Filling grade.
Rheopectic and viscoplastic behaviour.
Soil:
Loading.
Support.
Additional mechanisms (chapter 9 and 10).
178
Based on the chosen parameters calculations are made to predict internal forces and
deformations. Values are compared to the capacity of the lining. The capacity of the lining is
subject to several criteria:
-
ULS*:
-
Compressive strength of the segments (in tangential and axial direction).

Bending capacity of the segments.
(Local) stability of a ring of the segments.
Snap through of a ring.
SLS*:
Leakage:
Rotation in the longitudinal joints.
Deformation differences over the lateral joints.
Cracking.
Deformations.
*These criteria also involve long-term material behaviour and the consideration of cracking that
stimulates deterioration.
When designing the lining, iterations should be made to optimise the design within the criteria.
The following paragraph shows the qualitative influence of parameters in the two main load
cases.
11.3
Qualitative influence of parameters
In chapter 6 the two main load cases were given: the standard load case and the uplift loading
case. The main difference in both load cases is the support of the soil. Especially in the case of
incomplete grouting in the uplift load, the support at the sides and the bottom of the ring is low.
This has a dominant influence on the lining behaviour. When the ring is embedded in the soil
support, the behaviour of the lining is recognised in paragraph 6.9 (ring with soil support). In the
uplift system the lining behaviour is more like the description in paragraph 6.8 (ring without soil
support). It has turned out that the soil support is very important (good soil support causes, in
general, lower internal forces in the lining). Therefore the qualitative influence of parameters is
given in these two main different circumstances.
Table 29 shows the results of a parameter study to the influence of the design values of
dominant parameters in the lining design. The parameter studies are carried out with a frame
analysis. Two main load cases are distinguished: the standard load case (full overburden, full
elastic soil support) and the uplift loading case (incomplete grouting).
In the column headers sometimes the term kv = high or kv = low is used. It has become clear
that the total system behaviour is very much interacting, depending on stiffness ratios. But it has
also become clear that all results of the system are within the margins of a single ring and a
system of rings with couplings that are infinitely stiff. The structural behaviour of the lining
system very much depends on ring interaction. When the ring interaction is of minor influence,
the structural behaviour could be analysed in a single ring consideration. When the ring
179
interaction is of major influence, the ring interaction should be involved in the structural
analysis.
Furthermore the local behaviour is significantly influenced by local mechanisms as described in
chapter 9 and 10. The dominance of these mechanisms on the local behaviour very much
depends on the parameters that are chosen to configure the lining.
Table 29. Qualitative influence of parameters for a ring model with a lining in masonry layout (possibility for
deformation differences between rings).
11.4
Joint rotation
Def. dif.
u2
0/-
0/-
0/
-
0/
+
0/
-
+ 0
+ -
0/
0
tens (kv low)
Fp
tens (kv high)
Mtg (kv low)
+ +
Fp
Mtg (kvhigh)
0/
-
u2
Def. dif.
tens (kv low)
Uplift loading case, incomplete

grouting
Joint rotation
tens (kv high)
Increasing
parameter
Rotational
+
stiffness of
longitudinal
joints, cr (lt)
Coupling
stiffness kv
Youngs
modulus of
concrete Ec
Number of
+
segments
Coupling
+
location at
and (instead
of 0- -1)
- Increase; + Decrease
Mtg (kv low)
Mtg (kvhigh)
Standard load case
Design philosophy
The need for fundamental understanding of tunnel behaviour and the effects of the surrounding
soil rose due to the occurrence of damage. This led to a decrease in tunnel failures, support
optimisation and an improved understanding of the processes, which occur in the soil as a result
of excavation. Tunnel design in soft soil is recognised as a complete different philosophy from
rock tunnelling and requires a separate approach. A huge number of works in this field were
performed by many authors and the knowledge of the structural design of tunnels in soft soils is
available everywhere.
All approaches would satisfy three criteria:
1. Simplicity in using.
180
2. Ability of modelling the most significant effects such as soil material properties, forces,
stresses, support geometry and properties.
3. Ability of correct modelling of loading conditions (construction stage and serviceability
stage) and ground-structure interaction.
Engineers must be able to rely on a design model for tunnels, which provides a suitable, safe and
economical structure. Translation of the real structural behaviour into a mechanicalmathematical engineering-model is difficult, even when correct solutions are given in literature.
During modelling the most important thing is whether the assumptions are valid in all cases.
A tunnel lining is the final product of a complicated process to meet the user demands. In some
projects the costs of the lining reaches the sum of more than 35% of the total costs. Because of
the interrelation of so many influences there is an existential need to consider the problems of
tunnel lining design with special care. It is obvious that an effective and unique philosophy can
not be established for all types of tunnels in all kinds of soil. But it is clear that some of the
theories and combinations give an appropriate background and a practical orientation to find an
optimal solution in a specific case. Experience still is of considerable importance but new
knowledge gained by the observations, measurements and research rise to the idea that tunnel
behaviour can be predicted.
It becomes clear that the existing guidelines should be used with utmost care when applied to
tunnels in the typical Dutch soft soils. A common conclusion is that the assembly has a
dominant influence on the lining behaviour. Therefore a different philosophy has become
necessary for predicting the lining behaviour. The main aspect must be the understanding that
the assembling stage can be as important as the serviceability stage and that the lining behaviour
performs a three dimensional behaviour instead of the mostly assumed two-dimensional
behaviour. The analysis of the assembling stage should consider the effects of grouting.
Measurements of stresses in the segments of the concrete lining do not satisfy the assumption of
plane strain behaviour. Joints seem to have a main influence on the stiffness behaviour and can
also lead to stress peaks. Nowadays, new engineering tools are available to assist the engineer.
Analysing the lining behaviour in Dutch soft soils, concerning the assembly and serviceability
stage will be supported by new knowledge more and more. Economic and safe designs are main
requirements, and tools are available. Design criteria for the tunnel lining are still based on
moments and forces, deformations (global and local) and stresses, but with consideration of the
assembly.
A design approach should always have the boundary condition that the serviceability stage is
normative. To fulfil this condition basic assumptions are made to the assembling stage. It has to
be proven that these basic assumptions are valid in design, construction and exploitation. In case
that the assembling stage is at least as normative as the serviceability stage is, in respect to the
lining, an economical loss occurs because the construction stage is only a minor period in the
lifetime of the lining.
Proving the validity of the basic assumptions is a major part in design and construction. During
the design it has to be realised that basic assumptions are not able to be satisfied for 100%.
There will always be a difference, no matter the measure taken. The question is when
181
irregularities result in a normative stage. This question has to be solved before constructing the
lining.
Future designs might tend to more slender linings. Especially when the conviction arises that the
real structural behaviour is understood and can be predicted in a reliable and accurate way.
Besides that, optimisation should take place by provable better operational protocols. Further
optimisation can take place when the design of the TBM and the lining are highly tuned to each
other.
From the point of risk based design one major risk can be announced here: a normative
assembling stage. Risk based design starts with identifying the risks followed by ranking them.
This means to find out what impact does the risk have? When the assembling stage is normative,
the design is not an economical optimum. A choice has to be made: investing money to take
measures to eliminate the assembling stage as the normative stage, or accept the cost of the
assembly as the normative stage.
182
12
183
Conclusions
The design of the lining should always have the boundary condition that the serviceability
stage is normative. To fulfil this condition, basic assumptions are made to the assembling
stage. It has to be proven that these basic assumptions are valid in design, construction and
exploitation. In the case that the assembling stage is at least as normative as the
serviceability stage is, in respect to the lining, an economical loss occurs because the
construction stage is only a minor period in the lifetime of the lining.
The design philosophy of the lining of shield driven tunnels in soft soils must include an
extended analysis of the assembly to justify the basic assumption that the assembly is not
normative. It is obvious that quality loss by cracks and damage mainly occurs during
construction of the lining.
Additional mechanisms (chapter 9 and 10) easily lead to cracking. The main driving forces
for the cracks are torsional moments, additional tangential moments, shear forces and high
axial forces. A design of the lining requires an extended analysis of the mechanisms that
might cause damage. Generally spoken it is the best to avoid the occurrence of the
mechanisms by a good consideration of the design choices and verification of the design
choices in relation to the additional damage mechanisms. The analyses of the additional
mechanisms, applied to current actual projects, result in crack patterns that are frequently
observed in practice.
From the measurements it has become clear that the tangential stresses are mostly not
uniformly distributed over the segmental width. An analysis of the several stages of
assembly shows that, especially when the ring is within the TBM or just leaves the rear of
the TBM, the distribution of the tangential stresses is highly non-uniform. This is of
special interest when a crack analysis is carried out.
The comparison of the new analytical solutions of a coupled ring system with explicitly
implemented rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints, presented in chapter 4, shows a
good agreement with:
Well known solutions from literature.
Results from the full-scale tests at the Delft University of Technology.
Measurements in real tunnels in practice.
It was shown that structural analyses of linings with full soil support (ring analyses with
soil support in the serviceability stage) do not confirm the applied lining thickness that is
observed in todays practice. From the structural ring analyses with full soil support it
follows that the application of thicker linings is of poor influence on the safety and costs.
The uplift loading case (that involves grout loading on the lining in the assembling stage)
shows that soil support is of major influence on the safety of the lining and that therefore
the grout material specification and pressure should be considered very carefully.
Optimisation of the segmental thickness is only possible when the jack forces decrease,
soil supports act adequately in the very early stage of the assembly and the additional
mechanisms are controlled accurately. The optimisation of the segmented concrete lining
184

design should be a synergy between TBM design, structural engineering of the lining and
geotechnical engineering.
The Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) is a very advanced machine designed by specialists in
the field of mechanics and machinery. Specialists in the field of civil engineering design
the lining. It might be a coincidence that just at the contact interface of these two fields of
specialism the quality loss occurs. On the other side it is questionable whether or not both
disciplines communicate enough with respect to the harmonisation of their fields of
expertise and the consequences of choices made in design.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
Bloemhof, Damage to the segmented lining of shield driven tunnels, Delft University of
Technology, May 2001, Delft, The Netherlands (Dutch).
Blom C.B.M., Background document Lining behaviour -Analytical solutions of coupled
segmented rings in soil, Thesis Design philosophy for concrete linings of tunnels in soft
soils, Delft University of Technology 25.5-01-15, 2002, Delft.
Blom C.B.M., G.P.C. van Oosterhout, Full-scale laboratory tests on a segmented lining,
Summary report, Ministry of Transport and Water Management, Project Organisation
High Speed Line, Project Office North Holland, Management Group Betuweroute, TNO
Building and Construction, Delft University of Technology, March 2001, The
Netherlands.
Blom C.B.M., Primary evaluation Results of the full-scale tests with the geometry of
the Botlek Railway tunnel, Project Organisation High Speed Line, Project Office North
Holland, Management Group Betuweroute, TNO Building and Construction, Delft
University of Technology, version 2.9, June 2000, The Netherlands.
Blom C.B.M., Longitudinal behaviour of the lining of shield driven tunnels, Delft
University of Technology, 1995, Delft (Dutch).
Blom C.B.M., H.C.W. Duurland, P.S. Jovanovic, G.P.C. van Oosterhout, Three
dimensional analyses and design of tunnel linings at construction stage, 4th European
conference on numerical methods in geotechnical engineering, 14-16 Oct 1998, Udine,
Italy.
Bouma A.L., Stability b19B, Delft University of Technology, 1985, Delft.
Bouma A.L., Structural mechanics, elasto static analyse of slender structures, DUM,
ISBN 90 6562 114 8 cip, 1989, Delft.
COB L500, Guidelines for the design of shield driven tunnels for road and rail
infrastructure, COB L500, September 2000, Gouda.
Duddeck H., Analysis of lining for shielddriven tunnels, Proceedings international
symposium on tunnelling in soft and water bearing ground, Lyon 1984, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
ITA Working Group, Guidelines for the design of tunnels, ITA Working Group on
General Approaches to the design of tunnels, Tunnelling and underground space
technology, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 237-249, 1988, Great Britain.
Haring F., Stresses at the assembly and serviceability stage in the lining of shield driven
tunnels, Delft University of Technology, 2002, Delft (Dutch).
Janen, Load capacity of segment joints, dissertation, Braunsweigh university, 1983.
Koningen M, S. Lokhorst, Assembly stresses Botlek Railway tunnel, interpretation and
evaluation of the measurement results of the measurement ring, Holland Railconsult,
2001, Utrecht (Dutch).
Molenaar D.J, Instruments of the measurement ring of the Botlek Railway Tunnel,
delivery and assembling report, TNO Bouw, 2000-CON-DYN-R-2106, 24 okt 2000,
Delft (Dutch).
Roggeveld R., Damage to the lining of shield driven tunnels, effects of unintended
derivation of ideal positioning, Delft University of Technology, 2002, Delft.
Ros P., Vliet C. van der, Analysis of the 3D FEM results and comparison with the fullscale test measurement results, Project Organisation High Speed Line, Project Office
North Holland, NOH\77506, 30th June 2000, The Netherlands.

[18] Slenders B., Tunnel modelling, modelling of the assembly stage, Delft University of
Technology, 2002, Delft.
[19] Walraven J.C., J.C. Galjaard, Pre-stressed concrete, Delft University of Technology,
1993, Delft (Dutch).
Literature
[20] Baars, S. van, The loading on tunnel segments, Ministry of transport and water
management, SDU-98-227, Utrecht, 1998.
[21] Bakker K.J., Soil retaining structures, development of models for structural analysis,
ISBN 90 5809 3204, Rotterdam, 2000.
[22] Baumann Th., Tunnelauskleidung mit Stahlbetontbbingen, Bautechnik 69, Germany,
1992.
[23] Benjamin J.R., Cornell C.A., Probability, statistics and decision for civil engineers,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., ISBN 07-004549-6, 1970.
[24] Bloemhof K., C.B.M. Blom, C. van der Veen, Crack revealing mechanisms for the lining
of tunnels at the assembly, Cement, The Netherlands (Dutch) , 2001.
[25] Blom C.B.M., P.S. Jovanovic, W. Oudejans, Recommendation on guidelines for
structural analyses and design, 16th IABSE conference, Lucerne, 2000.
[26] Blom C.B.M., E. van der Horst, P.S. Jovanovic, Three dimensional structural analyses of
the shield driven tunnel Green Hart, High Speed Line South, International Tunneling
Association, Journal of The Underground Space Technolgy, Elsevier, USA, 1999.
[27] Blom C.B.M., 'Global bending moments due to TBM forces on the lining, cases from the
second Heinenoordtunnel' (Dutch), technical report, COB L530, Gouda, 1999.
[28] Blom C.B.M., P.S. Jovanovic, 'Requirements for tunnel design in soft soil', Long Road and
Rail tunnels, Basel, 29-30 November 1999.
[29] Blom C.B.M., P.S. Jovanovic, W. Leendertse, 'Bored tunnels in soft soils - Fundamentals
through three-dimensional numerical applications', 10th international conference of
IACMAG, Arizona, 7-12 januari 2001.
[30] Blom C.B.M., P.S. Jovanovic, W. Leendertse, Using 3D FEM models for predicting
damage during assembling of shield driven tunnel lining of the Green Heart Tunnel, ISKyoto 2001 Modern Tunneling Science and Technology, Japan, Oct 30 - Nov 1, 2001.
[31] Blom C.B.M., P. Ros, A. de Boer, C. van der Vliet, Strategy and results of calibration for
complex 3D FEM models for tunnel linings in soft soils, IS-Kyoto 2001 Modern
Tunneling Science and Technology, Oct 30 - Nov 1, Kyoto, Japan, 2001.
[32] Blom C.B.M., Tests and researches of lining of shield driven tunnels (Dutch), Cement
September 2001, p.70-74, The Netherlands, 2001.
[33] Blom C.B.M., F. Vahle, J. Jonker, T. Topper, 3D Modelling and measuring of linings,
Lessons from the second heinenoordtunnel, PAO TUD, Delft (Dutch) , January 1998.
[34] Blom C.B.M., H.C.W. Duurland, P.S. Jovanovic, G.P.C. van Oosterhout, Assembly
stresses governing in tunnel design (Dutch), Cement 10, The Netherlands, oktober 1998.
[35] Blom C.B.M., G.P.C.van Oosterhout, Second order evaluation of the tunnel construction
of the second heinenoordtunnel, part 1 & 2, COB K100-W-061/066, Gouda, 1997.
[36] Breugel K. van, C. van der Veen, J.C. Walraven, C.R. Braam, Concrete structures under
temperature and shrinkage deformations, ISBN 90-71806-30-8, s Hertogenbosch, 1998.

[37] CEB/FIB, Structural concrete, textbook on behaviour, design and performance, Volume
1 to 3, 1999.
[38] COB L530, C.B.M. Blom, R. van Beek, Collision forces in shield driven tunnels, project
32.4, Holland Railconsult, COB L530, Utrecht, 1998.
[39] Dijk B.F.J. van, First order evaluation geotechnical behaviour, postdictions and
evaluation EEM models, CUR/COB K100, TEC, Veenendaal, 1999.
[40] Duddeck H., Empfehlungen zur Berechnung von Tunneln im Lockergestein, Bautechnik
10, Germany, 1980.
[41] Erdmann, Vergleich ebener und entwicklung raumlicher berechnungverfahren fur
tunnel, Dissertation, Technischen Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunsweig, 1983.
[42] Glerum A., Tunnelling in Holland, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
special issue, Pergamon, April - June 1999.
[43] Hashimoto T., J. Nagaya, T. Konda, Evaluation of stress released ratio and ground
deformation due to shield tunnelling, Geo-Research Institute, Osaka, Japan, 2001.
[44] Horst E. van der, C.B.M. Blom, C. van der Veen, P.S. Jovanovic, Influence of Packing
Materials on Tunnel Lining Behaviour, ITA - World Tunnel Congress Challenges for the
21st century, Oslo, 1999.
[45] Jovanovic P.S., Study of literature, structural analyses and design methods for bored
tunnels on soft ground, Holland Railconsult, 0001076.r.p.9503, Utrecht, November 1994.
[46] Jovanovic P.S., W. Leendertse, C.B.M. Blom, Validation on constitutive and computer
models, Laboratory en field Testing, 10th conference of IACMAG, Arizona, 2001.
[47] Jovanovic P.S., Calculations and studies tunnel linings, Project office north Holland,
Project organisation High Speed Line (HSL) South, 9g4/0001/970915, 1997.
[48] Kimura K. Dangerous gap between theory and practice in EPB tunneling in Japan,
Japan Railway Construction Public Cooperation, 2001.
[49] HSL South, New developments in tunnel lining design, the Dutch approach, Project
office north Holland, Project organisation High Speed Line (HSL) South, 1999.
[50] HLS South, Development of shield driven tunnels in Holland and Japan, Project office
north Holland, Project organisation High Speed Line (HSL) South, November 1999.
[51] Molendijk W.O., Inventory geotechnical design aspects of bored tunnels, Geodelft,
CO348679.017, 1994.
[52] Okada T., S. Konishi, T. Mohri, K. Tateyama, Detection of cracks on tunnel concrete
lining with electric conductible paint, RTRI, Japan, 2001.
[53] Oosterhout G.P.C. van, C.B.M. Blom, P.S. Jovanovic, Analysis of tunnel lining behaviour
in soft soil during the construction stage, Second Heinenoord Tunnel, Geotechnical
Engineering for Transportation Infrastructure: Theory and Practice, Planning and Design,
Construction and Maintenance. 12th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Amsterdam, 7-10 June 1999, Rotterdam, ISBN 90-5809-047-7,
p. 2087-2092, 1999.
[54] Paul S.L., A.J. Hendron, E.J. Cording, G.E. Sgouros, P.K. Saha, Design
recommendations for concrete tunnel linings, volume II: summary of research and
proposed recommendations, University of Illinois, 1983.
[55] Plekkenpol J.W., F.W.M. Mol, Evaluation of deformations of the tunnel lining in and just
behind the TBM at the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, CUR/COB K100, Ministry of
transport and water management, Utrecht, 1998.
[56] Put A. van der, Summary of calculations of the bored tunnel, Second Heinenoord
Tunnel, Ministry of transport and water management, T-962150, Utrecht, 1996.

[57] Ros P., C. van der Vliet, Benchmark report, the behaviour of longitudinal and lateral
joint in two EEM models, Project office north Holland, Project organisation High Speed
Line (HSL) South, CVL/R/20000195/3.13, Utrecht, 2000.
[58] Schreyer J., D. Winselmann, Suitability tests for the lining for the 4th Elbe Tunnel Tube
results of large scale tests, Tunnel 1/2000, Germany, 2000.
[59] Sitter C., Continuum mechanics, Delft University of Technology, Ctma4360(1), Delft,
May 2000.
[60] Sitter C., Material models for soil and rock, Delft University of Technology, CT4360 (2
May 2002), Delft, 2002.
[61] Talmon A.M., L. Aanen, A. Bezuijen, W.H. van der Zon, Grout pressures around a
tunnel lining, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands, 2001.
[62] Tamura Takeshi, On the fundamental mechanism of tunneling, Kyoto University, Japan,
2001.
[63] Vahle F., N Joustra, Joint behaviour of segmented linings, CUR/COB L530, Gouda,
1997.
[64] Vahle F., Calibration of assembly loads on segments, CUR/COB F340, Holland
Railconsult, HRC.11099, Utrecht, 2001.
[65] Verruijt A., Soil mechanics, DUM, ISBN 90 6562 045 1, Delft, 1990.
[66] Vliet C. van der, P. Ros, Zeilmaker A., Postiction report, analysis of the 3D FEM results
and the comparison with the measurement results, Project office north Holland, Project
organisation High Speed Line (HSL) South, NOH\77506, 2000.
[67] Vrouwenvelder A., Design methods, models for tunnels, reliability aspects, second phase,
quantification of uncertainties and sensitivity analyses, TNO building and construction,
98-CON-R1314, 1998.
[68] Waal R.G.A. de, Steel fibre reinforced tunnel segments, Delft, ISBN 90-407-1965-9,
Delft, 1999.
[69] Wijk S.C.W. van, Relations between excavation, geotechnical and structural
measurements, Delft University of Technology, faculty of Civil Engineering, 1998.
APPENDIX A: Measured strains

Detail 1
Axial strain
gauge
A-A
1
Detail 1
Tangential
strain gauge
5
6
3
4
Tangential
strain gauge
50mm
1
2
Axial strain
gauge
400mm
Ring with positions

of tangential strain
gauge (axial gauges
not drawn)
Figure 151. Lay out of equipped ring at the Botlek Railway Tunnel.
In Figure 151 the layout of the equipped ring at the Botlek Railway Tunnel is shown. In Table
30 and Table 31 the angle phi () is used. This angle refers to in Figure 151. At the angle
several measurement devices are situated. In Figure 151 at angle three couples of tangential
strain gauges are situated, in total six tangential devices. The first couple (1 and 2) provides
two tangential strains. From this two values the average value is the tangential normal strain for
this couple. The average value of the three couples is the average normal strain at this section.
This is the value presented in Table 30 as normal strain. From the first couple (1 and 2) also
the difference of the measured strains can be calculated. To calculate strains at the concrete
surface, the strains have to be converted as being at the surface (the strain devices are covered
with 50mm of concrete). This can be reached by multiplying the difference of the couple by
400/300. This value is called the corrected difference value. The average of the corrected
difference value of the three couples is called bending strain (corrected for concrete cover of

50mm) in Table 30. In this document sometimes minimum and maximum values are used. In
that case not the average value of the couples is used, but the minimum or maximum value of
the three couples.
In a similar way Table 31 is generated. For extended review of the measurement data a reference
is made to [2].
Table 30. Average values of measured tangential strains (strains *10-6).
Normal strain
Phi [ ] t=100 t=350 t=750 t=7500 Phi [ ]
20
-12 -106 -104
-66
20
30
9
-22
-55
7
30
44
15 -101 -106
-93
44
54
2 -116
-71
-63
54
74
-1 -128
-86
-87
74
84
12
-36
-64
-18
84
95
11
-74
-63
-33
95
105
-4 -134 -101 -105
105
115
44
-15
-75
-35
115
125
-3 -101
-92 -107
125
135
16
-3
-53
-21
135
147
12
-40
-77
-41
147
157
1
-89
-94 -110
157
177
5
-79
-85 -110
177
187
20
-70 -122 -107
187
198
13
-87 -104
-82
198
208
-4 -113 -107 -119
208
218
28
-51
-93
-91
218
228
-4 -113 -101 -104
228
238
16
-86 -113 -115
238
260
-7 -113 -122 -103
260
270
29
-67
-61
-77
270
280
-12 -137 -134 -110
280
290
-31 -131 -126
-72
290
309
3 -144 -116 -140
309
319
-13 -118 -109 -110
319
329
18
-92
-71
-75
329
339
-17 -115
-94
-61
339
347
-7 -100 -100
-63
347
Bending strain (corrected for

concrete cover of 50mm)
t=100 t=350 t=750 t=7500
-32
13 -114
-32
-7
10
-87
2
-9
-75
-18
29
-46
21
57
137
-5 224
179
221
-3 171 201
230
-21
156
168
195
-68
92
93
71
-67
24
-51
-110
-32
20
-78
-104
1
-78 -146
-167
-18 -142 -174
-158
-78 -131 -227
-104
-104 -150 -233
-167
-38 -168 -245
-231
5 -112 -178
-152
41
13
-97
12
33 186
-3
96
17
108
134
137
-1
212
272
219
-18 188 256
258
-30
234
235
265
3 224 224
260
-27 -236
-38
-4
-22 -180
-61
25
-88 -379 -152
5
-161 -238 -219
-94
-80 -246 -190
-125
-64
-58 -194
-140
Example to calculate the stresses

The average tangential stress is calculated at t=7500 at =147 .
From Table 30:
tg,N=-41.10-6, tg,M=-158.10-6

From Table 31:
ax,N=-179.10-6, ax,M=23.10-6
The Youngs modulus of concrete Ec=40.000MPa, the lateral contraction coefficient =0.2. The
relation between the strains and the stresses is:
i = (1.042 i + 0.208 j ) E c
Calculate the tangential normal stress:
tg , N = (1.042 tg , N + 0.208 ax , N ) E c =
(1.042 * 41.10 6 + 0.208 * 179.10 6 ) * 40000 = 3.20 MPa
Only half of the bending strain must be taken into account to calculate the tangential stress at the
surface due to bending:
tg , M
ax , M
)Ec =
+ 0.208
2
2
158.10 6
23.10 6
+ 0.208 *
(1.042 *
) * 40000 = 3.20MPa
2
2
tg , M = (1.042
From these stresses the structural forces and stresses can be determined.
Table 31 Average values of measured axial strains (strains *10-6)
Normal strain
Phi [ ] t=100 t=350 t=750 t=7500 Phi [ ]
30
-71 -224 -160
-178
30
44
-81
-98
-21
-8
44
84
-73 -190
3
-156
84
95
-89 -175
-1
-132
95
115 -118 -210
-6
-124
115
135
-92 -277
-81
-269
135
147
-63 -218
-33
-179
147
187
-97 -244
-96
-179
187
198
-64 -137
-27
-79
198
218
-72 -194
-30
-43
218
238
-86 -174
-99
-44
238
270 -100 -156 -161
-34
270
290
-44 -121 -110
-48
290
309
-39
-43
-49
69
309
329
-75
-29
-32
70
329
347
-42
-31
-9
1
347
Bending strain (corrected for

concrete cover of 50mm)
t=100 t=350 t=750 t=7500
-28 -155
35
0
-11 -118
37
94
-13 -192
-47
-49
-29 -215
-57
-66
-73 -198
11
-29
-99 -167
-49
-74
-40 -102
3
23
29 -110
21
56
-2 -183
9
-3
-49 -264
-30
-58
-27 -134
-57
-27
-40 -187
-98
-45
56 145 135
196
9 108 102
147
111
-27
75
120
89 -140
31
-117
APPENDIX B: Theoretical comparison between the lining of the BRT and

the GHT
B.1
Introduction
In this supplement a comparison is made between the lining geometry of the BRT and the lining
geometry of the GHT by use of a frame analysis. For the GHT two geometries are considered.
The first is the GHT geometry with a lining thickness of 60cm, the second is the GHT geometry
with the lining thickness of 50cm. The geometry of the GHT is scaled to the proportions of the
BRT and is implemented in the soil conditions of the BRT. Two load cases are handled: the
normal load case and the uplift loading case with incomplete grouting.
The geometry of the BRT has several geometrical differences compared to the GHT. As a
reference the BRT is calculated with the frame analysis. In several steps the geometry of the
BRT is mutated to the geometry of the GHT. Every step is separately calculated. As a result the
influences of every change to the geometry is visible. Finally the geometry of the GHT is
calculated in the soil conditions of the BRT. This stepped analysis provides insight in the effects
of choices made for the geometry of the lining.
The results of the separate calculations are:
The main deformations.
The tangential bending moments.
The tangential maximum stresses.
The coupling forces.
The alpha factor 2. Only in the serviceability loading (2-factor is the part of the active
loading concerning ovalisation, that is reduced by elastic soil reaction).
The maximum longitudinal joint rotation max.
For the three main geometries (BRT, GHT 60cm, GHT 50cm) the lining capacities are
determined to analyse the safety factors on the ULS (Ultimate Limit State) and cracking.
To involve the influences of the tangential stresses due to the jack forces and the lateral
contraction, simple FEM analyses are made. The combination of the tangential stresses from the
frame analyses and the results of the simple FEM analyses provides insight in the probability of
cracking for the geometries in the different loading conditions.
B.2
Geometry of the lining and the assumed soil and load cases
Figure 152 shows the lining in the assumed soil of the BRT. The inner radius of the lining is
r=4325mm. From the centre of the lining to the surface the overburden is h=25000mm. At the
top of the soil there is a unsaturated soil area with a thickness of 2300mm. As a consequence the
saturated soil overburden is hw=22700mm. This is also the height of the water table. In both the
load cases (the normal load case and the uplift loading case) there is an assumed elastic soil
stiffness with Es=38MPa.
Since the geometry of the GHT has a larger diameter compared to the BRT, the geometry of the
GHT is scaled to the radius of the BRT. Only the radius of 4325mm to 6650mm determines the

scale factor. For example: when the original thickness of the lining is 600mm, then the scaled
value is 4325/6650*600=390mm. Scaling is applied to the diameter, lining thickness, segmental
width and the contact area in the longitudinal joints (Table 32).
0
0.500
0.400
Surface
sd
hd
0.300
0.200
Water table
0.100
Soil
0.000
270
sw
90
hw
180
Lining

Radial effective soil
Figure 152. Lining in soil with parameters.
Figure 153. Radial acting load for the normal case (shown
for BRT diameter).
Table 32. Geometrical values. Values in [ ] are scaled values to be used in the calculations.
Description
Overburden height
Water table height
Saturated soil weight
Unsaturated soil weight
Water weight
Soil elasticity
Youngs modulus
concrete
Inner radius
Lining thickness
Half segmental width
Location of coupling
spring
Spring stiffness
Longitudinal joint
contact
Number of segmental
areas
paramet
er
h
hw
sw
sd
w
Es
Ec
Value
25000mm
22700mm
18.10-6N/mm3
16.10-6N/mm3
10.10-6N/mm3
38MPa
40000MPa
r
d
b
BRT
4325mm
400mm
750mm
0 - -1
GHT (60cm)
6650mm [4325]
600mm [390]
1000mm [750]
-
GHT (50cm)
6650 [4325]
500mm [325]
1000mm [750]
-
kv
lv
100.000N/mm
170mm
10.000.000N/mm
400mm [260]
10.000.000N/mm
300mm [195]

The main geometrical differences between the GHT and the BRT are:
1. The internal radius of the lining of the GHT is 6650mm (BRT 4325mm).
2. The thickness of the lining of the GHT is 600mm or 500mm in the alternative GHT case
(BRT 400mm). The ratio between diameter and thickness of the lining is for the GHT
13.300/600=22.2, for the alternative GHT case 13.300/500=26.6 (BRT 8650/400=21.6).
3. The positions of the lateral contact areas of the GHT are at and of the segmental length
(BRT 0, and 1). At the GHT the contact in the lateral joints between the segments is a
concrete to concrete contact without any joint materials (BRT has contact areas with
plywood as packing material).
4. The rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joint depends on the contact height in the
longitudinal joint between the segments. For the GHT this contact height is the segmental
thickness minus 200mm: 400mm with a segmental thickness of 600mm and 300m with a
segmental thickness of 500mm (BRT 170mm with a segmental thickness of 400mm).
5. A ring of the GHT is assembled of nine segments and a keystone (keystone is neglected).
The BRT is assembled of 7 segments and a keystone (keystone is neglected).
6. The segmental width of the GHT is 2000mm (BRT 1500mm).
The first handled load case is the normal load case. The active radial loading is due to the
following equation (Figure 153):
r()=vceff*(C1+C2*cos(2))+ w()
Where:
C1=(1+K0)/2
C2=(1-K0)/2
w()=wc-cos()*w*r
The tangential load component is neglected.
The second load case is the uplift loading case with incomplete grouting (Figure 154).
Stiffness distribution of the
fictitious radial top support on
upper half of the ring
soil
grouting
TBM
lining
Modeled rings
(2*half ring)
Assumed
vertical free
translation
lining
Hydrostatic water
pressure as load
Figure 154. Hydrostatic radial loading (uplift), elastic soil support and boundary conditions of the uplift loading
case.

The used frame analysis makes use of two rings with a half-segmental width. The elastic support
is implemented by radial linear springs. The longitudinal joints are represented by rotational
springs and are able to transmit the lateral forces and bending moments. The rotational stiffness
is fitted on the theoretical values in the stage I and II (see chapter 5). The lateral joint interaction
is represented by radial linear springs.
B.3
Capacity of segments
By use of the measured segmental quality of the segments of the BRT, the crack limit strength
and (ultimate) bending moments of the segments can be determined. The measured strength of
the segmental concrete is about 64MPa.
From the measured strength the tensile bending strength of the concrete are calculated.
f ck = 64MPa
1
400
1
d
)(1 +
)(1 + 64) = 5MPa
f ctm = (1.6
f ck ) = (1.6
1000
20
1000
20
It is assumed that the first cracks might appear (because of time effects) at 75% of this value:
f ctm , 75% = 3.8MPa
In a segment without tangential normal forces the first cracking appears at the tangential bending
moment Mr1 (fctm,75%):
1
M r1 = 0.75 f ctmW = 0.75 * 5 * * 750 * 400 2 = 75kNm / 0.75m
6
Full cracking occurs at the tangential bending moment Mr2 (fctm,75%):
1
M r 2 = f ctmW = 5 * * 750 * 400 2 = 100kNm / 0.75m
6
In the ideal situations the tangential bending moments occur in combination with the presence of
tangential compressive normal forces. The tangential compressive normal force increases the
bending moments where cracking appears. As an example an average tangential compressive
normal force of 1375kN/0.75m is assumed. Both values Mr1 and Mr2 are calculated taking into
account the tangential compressive normal force:
1375 * 10 3 1
N
) * * 750 * 400 2 = 167 kNm / 0.75m
M r1 = (0.75 f ctm + )W = (3.8 +
750 * 400 6
bd
1375 * 10 3 1
N
) * * 750 * 400 2 = 191kNm / 0.75m
M r 2 = ( f ctm + )W = (5 +
750 * 400 6
bd
When the tangential compressive normal forces are present, very often the calculated values
from the lining analysis for the tangential bending moments are smaller than the bending
moment Mr. From measurements it is known that in the segments spots may appear where
tangential bending moments act, while the tangential normal forces are absent (Figure 155).
Then the calculated values from the analysis for the tangential bending moments are compared
with the bending moment Mr without the tangential normal forces. The maximum tangential
bending moments might cause an exceedance of the tensile strength of the concrete.
From the geometry of a segment also the ultimate tangential bending moment for the Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) can be calculated. Again an average tangential compressive normal force of

N=1375kN/0.75m is assumed. The segments are reinforced with steel bars. At each (inside and
outside) side of the segment there are 13 steel bars with a diameter of 10mm. The reinforcement
has a material strength of 435MPa. This results in a maximum force in the steel bars Ns (for half
a segmental width):
13
10
N s = * * ( ) 2 * 435 = 222kN / 0.75m
2
2
Additional stress due to
jack forces
Stress due to
bending
Diminish of prestressing by
normal forces
Eccentric force
introduction
Ring 1
Figure 155. Eccentric force introduction, stress distributions.
The compressed zone of the concrete results from the equilibrium of the normal forces,
Nc=N+Ns:
N c = 1375 + 222 = 1597kN / 0.75m
The maximum acceptable compressive stress in the concrete is 60% of fck:
fb=0.6*64=38MPa.
The height of the compressive zone xu is calculated by:
Nc
1597 * 10 3
xu =
=
= 75mm
'
0.75 f b b 0.75 * 38 * 750
Finally the ultimate bending moment is calculated:
d
M u = N s d s + N N c (d 0.39 xu ) =
2
222 * 55 + 1375 * 200 1597(400 0.39 * 75) = 305kNm / 0.75m
For the ULS it is assumed that the tangential compressive normal forces are present. To exceed
the ULS the segmental strength must be exceeded over the total segmental width. Therefore the
eccentric load introduction does not influence the ULS.
B.4
Numerical results of the cases
In this paragraph the main numerical results of the frame analysis are presented in eight cases
per load case (the normal load case and the uplift loading case):
Case 0.
The geometry of the BRT.

Case 1.
Case 2.
Case 3.
Case 4.
Case 5.
Case 6.
Case 7.
Case 8.
The geometry of the BRT, but the positions of the couplings in the lateral joints are
adapted to the GHT (the coupling positions are at and of the segmental length,
instead of 0, and 1).
Is case 1 but the stiffness of the couplings is adapted to the GHT (concrete to
concrete without the plywood packing material).
Is case 0 but the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints is adapted to the GHT
(66% of segmental thickness).
Is the combination of the cases 2 and 3.
Is case 0 but the number of segments is adapted to the GHT (9 segments instead of
7).
Is the combination of the cases 2, 3 and 5.
Is case 6 but the lining thickness is adapted to the scaled GHT 60cm geometry (390
instead of 400mm). This also influences the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints.
Is case 6 but the lining thickness is adapted to the scaled GHT 60cm geometry (325
instead of 400mm). This also influences the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D/d=26.6->d=325 lt=195
D/d=22.2->d=390 lv=260
number of segments
increase rotational stiffness

longitudinal joints
stiffness concrete-concrete
Case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
coupling location
Table 33. Numerical presentation of the results of the cases for the normal load case.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u[mm]
x-side/
y-bottom
4.16/-5.32
4.35/-5.50
4.22/-5.40
3.97/-5.08
3.99/-5.10
4.36/-5.45
4.07/-5.16
4.13/-5.23
4.59/-5.89
M
[kNm]
105
84
95
104
98
90
93
89
58
[MPa]
Max/min
0.76/-9.73
0.24/-8.70
0.28/-9.26
0.71/-9.68
0.43/-9.40
0.18/-8.98
0.18/-9.14
0.18/-9.25
0.23/-9.85
For every case in the normal load case general results are presented (Table 33):
The main deformations at the sides and the bottom of the lining.
The maximum tangential bending moments.
The maximum tangential tensile stresses.
The highest tangential compression stresses.
The maximum coupling forces.
The alpha factors (load reduction by soil support).
max
Fk
[kN]
35
20
52
20
27
33
41
37
25
2
[%]
73%
76%
74%
70%
70%
78%
74%
75%
82%

For the uplift loading case the same results are summarised (Table 34), but instead of the alpha
factor the maximum joint rotations are given. In the uplift loading case the alpha factor can not
be determined since the soil supports act only at the top of the ring. The rotations in the
longitudinal joints are in general higher than in the normal load case.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D/d=26.6->d=325 lt=195
D/d=22.2->d=390 lv=260
number of segments 4)
increase rotational stiffness

longitudinal joints 3)
stiffness concrete-concrete 2)
Case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
coupling location 1)
Table 34. Numerical presentation of the results of the cases for the uplift loading case.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u[mm]
x-side/
y-bottom
5.29/-6.05
8.75/-9.10
6.10/-6.83
4.18/-5.00
4.36/-5.20
6.70/-7.33
4.74/-5.49
5.11/-5.88
11.2/-12.1
M
[kNm]
159
136
149
137
132
147
127
127
140
[MPa]
Max/min
5.30/-10.50
4.19/-9.45
4.89/-10.09
4.22/-9.51
3.98/-9.20
4.70/-9.97
3.70/-8.97
4.00/-9.41
7.36-/13.81
max
Fk
[kN]
66
67
71
36
52
83
73
72
122
max
[10-3
rad]
1.8
3.9
2.3
1.0
1.2
2.2
1.2
1.3
3.4
B.4.1 Evaluation of the results

In Table 35 a qualitative comparison between the cases (1 to 8) and case 0 is made. It is obvious
that the geometrical adaptations result in very different deformation behaviour for the two load
cases (normal load case and the uplift loading case). For the deformations in the normal load
case all the cases result within 10% of the value in case 0. For the uplift loading case the
deformations vary between 16% and +41%. This is explained by the different soil support in
the two load cases. In the normal load case the lining is totally embedded in soil. Variation of
the lining stiffness is directly compensated by the soil reaction support. In the uplift loading case
this support is very different. Only at the top of the ring some support is available. Therefore the
deformations of the lining in the uplift loading case are much more sensible to geometrical
adaptations.
It is obvious that all adaptations result in smaller values for the internal forces of the tangential
bending moments and the tangential tensile stresses. In all cases these forces decrease or are at
least equally to the values of case 0.
The tangential tensile stresses decrease more in the normal load case compared to the uplift
loading case. The reduction of the tangential bending moments is of the same magnitude for
both load cases.

Table 35. Qualitative comparison of the case parameters.
Normal load case

Uplift loading case
deformations Bending
Tensile
deformations Bending
moments
stresses
moments
1
5%
0 -20%
+ -68% ++
65%
-- -14%
2
1%
0 -10%
0 -63% ++
15%
- -6%
3
-5%
0 -1%
0 -7%
0
-21%
+ -14%
4
-4%
0 -7%
0 -43% ++
-18%
+ -17%
5
5%
0 -14%
+ -76% ++
27%
- -8%
6
-2%
0 -11%
+ -76% ++
-10%
+ -20%
7
-1%
0 -15%
+ -76% ++
-3%
0 -20%
8
10%
- -45% ++ -70% ++ 112%
-- -12%
-- = over 40% increase of the result of case 0
-= between 10% and 40% increase of the result of case 0
0 = within 10% of the result of case 0
+= between 10% and 40% decrease of the result of case 0
++ = over 40% decrease of the result of case 0
Case
Tensile
stresses
+ -21%
0 -8%
+ -20%
+ -25%
0 -11%
+ -30%
+ -25%
+ 39%
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
-
In case 2 the location and the stiffness of the couplings in the lateral joints are adapted. For the
lining with a rotational stiffness of the BRT (170mm) the influence on the deformations is 1%
increase (13% for the uplift loading case). If the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints is
adapted to the GHT (66% of the thickness of the lining) the influence of the coupling location
and stiffness on the deformations is 1% decrease for the normal load case and 3% for the uplift
loading case. The influence of the coupling geometry is very much depending on the rotational
stiffness of the longitudinal joints. The higher the rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints
the smaller is the influence of the couplings (location and stiffness) on deformations and internal
forces.
The increase of the number of segments results in more longitudinal joints in the ring. The lining
stiffness decreases by an increase of the number of longitudinal joints. Again the influence on
ring behaviour depends much on the rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints. When the
rotational stiffness of the longitudinal joints increases, the effect of the number of segments
decreases.
Comparing the three main cases 0, 7 and 8 (BRT, GHT 60cm and GHT 50cm), it is obvious that
the three cases in the normal load case deform almost equally. The maximum tangential bending
moments for the GHT configuration are smaller and the maximum tangential tensile stress levels
are lower. The maximum coupling force of the GHT 50cm configuration is smaller than the
maximum coupling force in the BRT and GHT 60cm configurations. This results from the
significant higher alpha-factor (80% instead of 72%) for the GHT 50cm geometry. This means
that 80% of the active loading is reduced by the soil reactions, while in case of the BRT and the
GHT 60cm geometry this is 72%. It is concluded that the global ovalisation stiffness of the rings
of BRT and GHT 60cm is nearly equal in the normal load case.
The three configurations in the uplift loading case show that the deformations of the BRT and
the GHT 60cm geometry are again nearly equal. The tangential bending moments and the
tangential tensile stresses decrease for the GHT 60cm geometry compared to the BRT. The

deformations for the GHT 50cm geometry increase, the tangential bending moments largely
increase, but the tangential tensile stresses are nearly equal to the BRT geometry. For all three
cases the maximum coupling forces are equal. The GHT 60cm results in a smaller longitudinal
joint rotation compared to the GHT 50cm en BRT geometry.
The given results lead to the belief that the GHT 50cm is the most optimal solution when only
the normal load case is involved. The main reason is the higher alpha-factor (a large part of the
active loading is reduced by the soil reactions, because the ring stiffness of the GHT 50cm is the
lowest of the three geometries). The geometry GHT 60cm is the most optimal solution of the
three main geometries when the uplift loading case is involved.
B.5
Graphical presentation of the results of the calculations
Figure 156 to Figure 161 graphically show the results of the calculated tangential normal force
(horizontal axis) and the tangential bending moment (vertical axis) relations (open dots) of three
cases: 0 (BRT), 7 (GHT 60cm) and 8 (GHT 50cm).
In the graphs 6 different lines are presented:
Mu(1.0fck): ULS tangential bending moment where the ultimate acceptable compressive
stress is fck=64MPa.
Mu(0.6fck): ULS tangential bending moment where the ultimate acceptable compressive
stress is 0.6fck
Mr(100%): The tangential bending moment where the maximum tensile stress of 100%
of fctm is reached, involving the presence of the (local) tangential normal force.
Mr(100%, N=0): The tangential bending moment where the tensile stress of 100% of fctm
is reached, exclusive the presence of the tangential normal force.
Mr(75%): The tangential bending moment where the tensile stress of 75% of fctm is
reached (first cracking expected), involving the presence of the (local) tangential normal
force.
Mr(75%, N=0): The tangential bending moment where the tensile stress of 75% of fctm is
reached (first cracking expected), exclusive the presence of the tangential normal force.
In the labels of the left graphs also safety factors are presented of the minimum safety from
occurred tangential bending moment to Mu(0.6fck, ULS safety) and Mr(75%, safety factor for
first cracking). The safety factors are calculated by dividing the available local strength
(depending on the local tangential compressive normal force) with the local forces.
Figure 156 to Figure 158 show the results of the calculations with the loading based on the
normal load case. Figure 159 to Figure 161 show the results of the calculations with the loading
based on the uplift loading case. Each figure has a main (left) graph from where a zoom is made
(right graph). An oval circle indicates the zoomed area.
Tangential Bending
Moment [kN m/0.75m]
Tangential Bending Moment

[kN m/0.75m]
B.5.1 The normal load case

600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1350
1370
1390
Tangential N ormal Force
[kN /0.75m]
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Tangential N ormal Force [kN /0.75m]
M u (1.0fck) [kN m]
M u (0.6fck) [kN m]
M r 100% N =0
M r 75%
LDesign
Gamma (M u 0.6) = 2.8
M r 100%
M r 75% N =0
Gamma (M r 75%) = 1.5
Tangential Bending
Moment [kN m/0.75m]

[kN m/0.75m]
Figure 156. Calculated tangential bending moments and normal forces compared to limit state values; Case 0
(BST), the normal load case.
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
1350
1370
1390
[kN /0.75m]
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
M u (1.0fck) [kN m]
M r 100% N =0
LDesign
2000
M u (0.6fck) [kN m]
M r 75%
Gamma (Mu 0.6) = 3.2
M r 100%
M r 75% N =0
Gamma (Mr 75%) = 1.8
Tangential Bending
Moment [kN m/0.75m]

[kN m/0.75m]
Figure 157. Calculated tangential bending moments and normal forces compared to limit state values; Case 7 (GHT
60cm), the normal load case.
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
M u (1.0fck) [kN m]
M r 100% N =0
LDesign
2000
M u (0.6fck) [kN m]
M r 75%
Gamma (M u 0.6) = 4
1275
1325
1375
[kN /0.75m]
M r 100%
M r 75% N =0
Gamma (M r 75%) = 2.1
50cm), the normal load case.
Tangential Bending
Moment [kN m/0.75m]

[kN m/0.75m]
B.5.2 The uplift loading cases

600.0
150.0
500.0
400.0
100.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
750
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M u (1.0fck) [kN m]
M u (0.6fck) [kN m]
M r 100% N =0
M r 75%
LDesign
Gamma (Mu 0.6) = 1.3
800
850
900
[kN /0.75m]
M r 100%
M r 75% N =0
Gamma (Mr 75%) = 0.8
Tangential Bending
Moment [kN m/0.75m]

[kN m/0.75m]
Figure 159. Calculated tangential bending moments and normal forces compared to limit state values; Case 0
(BST), uplift loading case.
600.0
150.0
500.0
400.0
100.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
750
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
M u (1.0fck) [kN m]
M r 100% N =0
LDesign
2000
M u (0.6fck) [kN m]
M r 75%
Gamma (M u 0.6) = 1.7
800
850
900
[kN /0.75m]
M r 100%
M r 75% N =0
Gamma (M r 75%) = 1
Tangential Bending
Moment [kN m/0.75m]

[kN m/0.75m]
60cm), uplift loading case.
600.0
150.0
500.0
400.0
100.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
750
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M u (1.0fck) [kN m]
M u (0.6fck) [kN m]
M r 100% N =0
M r 75%
LDesign
Gamma (M u 0.6) = 1.1
800
850
900
[kN /0.75m]
M r 100%
M r 75% N =0
Gamma (M r 75%) = 0.7
50cm), uplift loading case.

B.5.3 Evaluation of the graphical presentation
In the normal load case the BRT geometry has a safety factor of 2.8 on the ULS. The safety
factor for the GHT 60cm is 3.2 and for the GHT 50cm 3.9. The GHT configuration has higher
safety factors than the BRT geometry. Next, the safety factor for the GHT 50cm is higher than
the safety factor for the GHT 60cm. This is explained by the much higher alpha-factor for the
GHT 50cm geometry of 80% compared to 72% for the GHT 60cm geometry. The same
tendency is seen for the safety on the first cracking (Mr, 75%). In the zoomed graphs it is seen that
all three geometries exceed the first crack stress boundary if the tangential normal forces are not
present (Mr, 75%, N=0). The BRT configuration even exceeds Mr, 100%, N=0.
Table 36. Summary of results of the calculations and percentages of areas where tangential stresses exceed the
tensile stress capacities of the concrete (based on linear calculations).
Load case
Geometry
ULS
fctm, 75%
initial cracks(fctm75%)
Mtg, N=0
Mtg+Ntangential
cracks (fctm100%)
Mtg, N=0
Mtg+Ntangential
Normal load case

BRT GHT GHT
60cm 50cm
2.8
3.2
4.0
1.5
1.8
2.1
Uplift loading case

BRT GHT GHT
60cm 50cm
1.3
1.7
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.7
25%
-
28%
-
19%
-
25%
-
28%
-
67%
-
4%
-
11%
-
42%
-
In Table 36 the safety factors are summarised. Next, percentage values are presented. These
values indicate the percentage of the lining area where tangential stresses occur that exceed the
tensile stress strength of the concrete. The percentages are given for fctm, 75% and fctm, 100%.
For the normal load cases the fctm, 75% and fctm, 100% limits are not exceeded when tangential
normal compressive forces are present. In case that the tangential normal compressive forces are
not present (due to eccentric force introduction) the crack limits are sometimes exceeded. The
initial crack limit fctm, 75% is exceeded in 25% of the lining area for the BRT geometry, 28% for
the GHT 60cm geometry and 19% for the GHT 50cm geometry. The crack limit fctm, 100% is only
exceeded in 4% of the lining area for the BRT geometry. In general the GHT 50cm has the
fewest areas where crack limits are exceeded in the normal load case.
The uplift loading case shows a significant decrease of the safety factors (ULS and Mr, 75%) for
all three geometries. The GHT 60cm shows the highest safety factors (ULS=2.0 and
fctm,75%=1.1). The BRT geometry shows the lowest safety factors (ULS=1.6 and fctm,75%=0.9).
The BRT has even in the ideal situation where tangential normal compressive forces are present
at 4% of the lining area an exceedance of the initial crack limit fctm, 75%. The GHT geometry did
not exceed the initial crack limits. The geometries did not exceed the crack limit fctm, 100%.

In all three geometries high percentages of crack limit exceedance occurs when tangential forces
are eccentrically introduced in the segments. In 25% to 31% of the lining area, the fctm,100% limit
is exceeded, while in 46% to 56% of the lining area the fctm,75% limit is exceeded.
Based on the data of the normal load case, the GHT 50cm has the highest safety factors and the
lowest percentages of areas where crack limits are exceeded. Based on the data of the uplift
loading case the GHT 60cm has the highest safety factors and the lowest percentages of lining
areas where crack limits are exceeded. In both loading cases the BRT geometry has the lowest
safety factors.
All these cases are without consideration of the axial jack forces. In the next paragraph the axial
forces are introduced.
B.6
Additional tangential stresses due to axial forces and lateral contraction
In the former paragraphs only the tangential stresses due to radial loading were considered. The
construction process of the lining always involves axial forces by the TBM jacks. This
paragraph explains the influence of the introduction of jack forces and the lateral contraction on
the tangential stresses. The two main geometries of the BRT and the GHT are presented. Main
difference in the analysis is the jack configuration (location where the jack forces act on the
segments). At the GHT the jack forces act at and of the segmental length. At the BRT the
jack forces act at the longitudinal joints (at 0 and 1 of the segmental length) and just in-between
these two positions (at of the segmental length).
To illustrate the influence of the jack forces, relatively simple FEM analyses are carried out. A
quarter of the segment is modelled by shell elements. The geometry assumes the handle holes as
full holes in the shell. From the analyses at two lines the tangential stresses are shown in line
graphs for both the BRT and GHT geometry. For the GHT only the results for the segmental
thickness of 60cm are graphically presented, because the results for the segmental thickness of
50cm are close to the results of GHT 60cm.
The analysed lining thickness of the BRT is 400mm. For the GHT 60cm is the analysed lining
thickness 390mm (scaled thickness) and for the GHT 50cm is the analysed lining thickness
325mm (scaled thickness). In the analyses the concrete Youngs modulus is 40.000MPa and the
lateral contraction coefficient is =0.2. The segments are assumed to be symmetrically around
its vertical and horizontal axis. That is why only a quarter of the segment is modelled. This
results in the model boundary conditions as shown in Figure 162. It is assumed that at the
boundary of the longitudinal joints the segments are not in contact with the adjoining segments
(free longitudinal joints boundary), except for the BRT geometry. It has turned out that in the
BRT geometry the boundary condition in the longitudinal joint has significant influence on the
results. Therefore two analyses of the BRT are made: the BRT analysis where the longitudinal
joint is free and the BRT2 analysis where deformations in the longitudinal joints are resisted
(closed longitudinal joints). The jack forces are assumed to be 2000kN.

border
border
GHT
BRT
6
4
Graph
line
middle
Border (free
longitudinal joint), BRT
2
0
-2 0
middle
500
1000
[m m ]
1500
S_tg [MPa]
Free or closed
longitudinal joint
S_tg [MPa]
ux=-0.12mm
border
2
0
2000
-2 0
Border (closed
longitudinal joint), BRT2
middle
1000
[mm]
2000
Figure 162. Tangential stresses due to axial forces and later contraction, for the GHT (case 7,8) and BRT(2) (case
0).
From the left line graph in Figure 162, it is obvious that the BRT geometry has two different
lines for the tangential stresses at the border of the segment. If the support in the longitudinal
joints (BRT) is absent the generated tensile stresses by the axial forces are significant higher
compared to the case that the longitudinal joints are closed (BRT2). From the BRT analysis it
becomes clear that only a free displacement of 0.12mm (see Figure 162) is necessary to
generate much higher tangential tensile stresses (BRT2). If this displacement is fully resisted by
the closed longitudinal joints then the line with the lower tangential tensile stresses occurs
(BRT). The absolute values of the GHT geometry and the BRT geometry do not differ much.
Only the values for BRT2 case show significant higher tensile stresses. The GHT jack
configuration generates stresses that less depend on the boundary conditions in the longitudinal
joints. From paragraph B.3 it is known that initial cracks appear at 3.8MPa tensile stress. This
value is exceeded for the BRT2 configuration (free longitudinal joints). This means that after the
erection of the segments directly a probability occurs that cracks appear at the border of the
segments.
B.7
Probability of cracking in the cases
In paragraph B.4 the tangential stresses due to radial loading are shown (normal load case and
the uplift loading case). In paragraph B.6 the tangential stresses due to jack forces and lateral
contraction are shown. In practice a combination of these load conditions occurs. In this
paragraph all load conditions are considered in six scenarios, where it is expected that critical
tensile stress limits might be exceeded.

B.7.1 Introduction of the analysed scenarios
Fax GHT
Fax BRT
border
middle
N
Figure 163. Definitions of the analyses segmental areas and the force definitions.
Table 37. The analysed scenarios of tangential stresses due to forces and the analysed crack areas.
scenario
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[E]
[F]
Tangential stresses due to

(Figure 163)
N
M
Fax,border
Fax,middle
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Location
(Figure 163)
Stage
Middle
Border
Middle/border
Middle
Border
Border
Assembly
Assembly
Uplift/normal
Uplift/normal
Uplift/normal
Uplift/normal
In Table 37 the six scenarios are presented. These scenarios can be described as follows:
[A]
The segments are erected, but not yet loaded in radial direction. The analysed area is
the middle of the segments (Figure 163), where the tangential stresses occur due to
the axial forces and the lateral contraction.
[B]
Is [A], but the analysed area is the border of the segments (Figure 163).
[C]
The segments are only loaded in the radial direction. The influence of the tangential
stresses due to the axial forces and the lateral contraction is omitted. It is assumed
that the occurred tangential stresses are uniformly distributed over the segmental
width. The analysed areas are therefore the middle and the border of the segments,
which have equal stress values.
[D]
The segments are loaded by both radial and axial forces. The analysed area is the
middle of the segments where the tangential stresses occur due to the tangential
normal forces, the tangential bending moments and the axial forces with the lateral
contraction.
[E]
Is equal to [D], but the analysed area is the border of the segments.
[F]
Both the radial and axial forces load the segments. The analysed area is the border of
the segments. It is assumed that the tangential forces are eccentrically introduced
(Figure 155). The tangential bending moments and the axial forces with lateral
contraction cause the occurred tangential stresses.

B.7.2 Evaluation
Table 38. Summary of calculation results and percentages of lining areas where tangential stresses exceed crack
limits.
Load case
Geometry
uls
fctm, 75%
Normal load case

BRT BRT GHT GHT
2
60cm 50cm
2.8
2.8
3.2
4.0
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.1
Uplift loading case

BRT BRT GHT GHT
2
60cm 50cm
1.3 1.3
1.7
1.1
0.8 0.8
1.0
0.7
initial cracks(fctm75%)
[A] Fax/ middle
[B] Fax/ border
[C0] Mtg, N=0
[C] Mtg+Ntg
[D] Mtg+Ntg+Fax /middle
[E] Mtg+Ntg+Fax /border
[F] Mtg+Ntg=0+Fax /border
50%
25%
29%
61%
25%
36%
28%
28%
19%
19%
50%
25% 25%
11% 7%
50%
54% 29%
28%
28%
67%
22%
19%
39%
cracks (fctm100%)
[A] Fax/ middle
[B] Fax/ border
[C0] Mtg, N=0
[C] Mtg+Ntg
[D] Mtg+Ntg+Fax /middle
[E] Mtg+Ntg+Fax /border
[F] Mtg+Ntg=0+Fax /border
50%
4%
14%
50%
4%
21%
14%
14%
50%
11% 11%
29%
50% 29%
19%
42%
8%
19%
In Table 38 a summary is given of the calculation results for the two load cases, normal load
case and uplift loading case. The first crack limit fctm,75% is only exceeded by the BRT
configuration at 50% of the concrete border surface [B]. This is the scenario where only the
axial forces act on the considered segment. In the BRT case segments do not have contact with
adjoining segments in the longitudinal joints. The crack limit fctm, 100% is also exceeded by 50%.
Occurred tangential tensile stresses due to the axial forces and the lateral contraction are
immediately very high, so both limits are exceeded.
Because of the eccentric tangential force introduction, areas exist where only tangential stresses
occur due to tangential bending moments. In Table 38 the row [C0] Mtg N=0 lists the
percentages of areas where crack limits are exceeded. With the acting normal load case 19%
(GHT 50cm) to 25% (BRT(2)) of the areas exceed the first crack limit fctm, 75%. This means that
eccentric force introduction is of poor influence on crack probability. The probability of crack
initiation is high. Only 4% of the areas with the BRT geometry can be pointed to exceed the
fctm,100% limit. In combination with the axial forces the probability of cracking is further
increasing. The initial crack limit fctm, 75% is exceeded in 22% (GHT 50cm) to 61% (BRT) of the
segmental areas. Even the crack limit fctm, 100% is exceeded with 14% (GHT 50/60cm) to 50%
(BRT). The combination of eccentric tangential force introduction and tangential stresses due to

axial forces and the lateral contraction is of very poor influence on the probability of cracking. In
the scenarios that the tangential compressive normal force is present, only the BRT geometry
exceeds both crack limits.
In the uplift loading case it is seen that higher percentages occur where the crack limits are
exceeded due to the external forces. Tangential stresses due to the tangential bending moment
without the presence of the tangential compressive normal forces (row [C0] Mrg N=0) shows a
high probability of cracking, for both crack limits (25% for BRT(2) to fctm,100%, 56% for
GHT(50/60cm) to fctm, 75%). Again the addition of the tangential stresses due to the axial jack
forces and the lateral contraction increases the probability of cracking for both crack limits (14%
for GHT 60cm to fctm,100%, 68% for BRT to fctm,75%). With centric force introduction, including
the tangential normal compressive forces, still areas exist where tangential stresses exceed the
crack limits. Especially the borders of the segments are critical locations (3% for GHT 60cm to
fctm,100%, 43% for BRT to fctm, 75%), but also the middle areas of segments show exceed of crack
limits (4% for BRT2 to fctm, 100%, 17% for GHT 50cm to fctm, 75%).
In general it shows that the uplift loading case results in higher percentages of probable crack
areas. The borders of segments have a higher probability of cracking. Eccentric force
introduction is of poor influence on the probability of cracking.
The performance of the BRT2 (closed longitudinal joints) situation is better than the
performance of the BRT situation, especially at the border of the segments. The GHT 60cm
performs slightly better than the GHT 50cm.
When eccentricity of force introduction is controlled well (for example by operational protocols)
the maximum percentage of area with probable cracks is:
50% for BRT (free longitudinal joints, case B) just after erection of the segments.
14% initial cracking for BRT2 (well closed longitudinal joints, case E) at the border of
the segments when radial and axial forces are acting.
8% initial cracking for GHT 60cm (case E) at the border of the segments when radial and
axial forces are acting.
17% initial cracking for the GHT 50cm (case D) at the middle of the segments when
radial and axial forces are acting.
The GHT geometry overall performs better in probability of cracking. Including the safety
factor, the GHT 60cm is the optimal geometry with the highest safety factors and in general
smaller probability of cracking.
B.8
Conclusions
The analyses made in this supplement lead to some conclusions. Interpretation of the
conclusions should always be made with consideration of the following:
The cases and scenarios presented in this supplement are academic cases. The geometry
of the BRT is close to the real geometry. The geometry of the GHT is scaled to the
diameter of the BRT. All cases are in the assumed soil conditions of the BRT.

Conclusions:
The importance of the coupling geometry depends much on the rotational stiffness of the
longitudinal joints. The higher the rotational stiffness in the longitudinal joints the
smaller the influence of the couplings (location and stiffness) on deformations and
internal forces.
Tangential stresses due to axial jack forces and the lateral contraction have a significant
influence on the probability of cracking.
The considered geometries for the BRT and the GHT do all exceed crack limits in the
uplift loading case, even in ideal situations.
The considered geometries for the BRT2 (closed longitudinal joints) and the GHT do not
exceed crack limits in the ideal load condition due to the normal load case, in ideal
situations (BRT geometry is pointed not to be ideal because of the free longitudinal
joints).
In general the configuration of the GHT has higher safety factors to the ULS and first
cracking compared to the BRT geometry.
Decision to choose the optimal geometry will be different when based on the normal
load case (optimal is GHT 50cm) or the uplift loading case (optimal is GHT 60cm). In
the normal load case the GHT 50cm is more optimal because of the lower deformation
stiffness of the rings. As a consequence the alpha-factor increases and a larger part of the
active loading is reduced by the soil reactions.
In the uplift loading case the probability on cracking is significantly higher and the
general safety factors smaller than in the normal load case.
Eccentric force introduction is of poor influence on the probability of cracking and must
be avoided (operational protocol)
The free longitudinal joint (BRT) is of very poor influence on the crack probability.
Adaptations of jack positions or stringent operational protocols should minimise the
occurrence of this condition.
The borders of segments have a high probability of cracking.
The performance against cracking of the BRT2 (closed longitudinal joint) situation is
better than the performance of the BRT (free longitudinal joint) situation, especially at
the border of the segments. The GHT 60cm performance against cracking is slightly
better than the performance of the GHT 50cm.
The geometry of the GHT has overall a better performance in probability of cracking
compared to the BRT geometry. Including the safety factor the GHT 60cm is the optimal
geometry with the highest safety factors and in general smaller probability of cracking. If
the uplift loading case is excluded the optimal geometry is the GHT 50cm.
Consequence
If the operation of the assembly of the lining is such controlled that the uplift loading
case does not occur and eccentricity of tangential force introduction is avoided, the
stability of the lining is allowed to be more depending on the soil support, because the
safety factors increase and the probability of cracking still can be small. A stable system
more depending on the soil supports can be reached by a less stiff lining: a decrease of
the lining thickness, more segments, a reduced rotational stiffness of the longitudinal
joints. Especially the thinner lining is of interest from the economical point of view.
APPENDIX C: The local failure of the soil support of the lining

C.1
Introduction
The diameter of the TBM is larger than the diameter of the lining. Therefore a gap between the
lining and the soil has to be filled with e.g. grouting. It is known from actual projects that the
grout pressure can vary along the circumference of the lining. Besides that the initial pressure
can vary from place to place.
Due to the grout pressure the soil is loaded. When the soil pressure is very high then stresses in
the soil might exceed stress limit states. A well-known criterion is the limit stress state by MohrCoulomb. The actual stress limit criterion is the verification of the shear stress in relation to the
current normal stresses.
This supplement illustrates an analytical approach to determine the influence of a grout pressure
to the surrounding soil. For a grid around the tunnel it is checked whether or not the limit shear
stress, defined by Mohr-Coulomb, is exceeded. A comparison is made with a 2D FEM analysis.
This supplement is ended with a discussion about the influence of the exceedance of the limit
shear stress to the structural behaviour of the lining.
C.2
Stress development in the soil and the limit state shear stress
rr
v
h
tt
rr,tt
h
v,h
rs
Figure 164. Problem illustration.
Figure 164 illustrates the problem where the grout pressure causes influence on the stresses
on a certain depth d. At this depth already a stress distribution exists due to the dead weight of
the soil overburden.
In first instance it is assumed that the grout pressure does not cause any influence on the
observed part of the soil. As a consequence the actual stress distribution only results from the
dead weight of the soil overburden. The vertical stress is called v and the horizontal stress is

called h. In the horizontal and vertical directions the shear stress is zero. This situation is
illustrated in Figure 165. The vertical and horizontal stresses are the main stresses. As the figure
shows the circle through these stresses does not intersect the limit state shear stress. This means
that due to the acting stresses the observed soil part is not failed.
The figure also shows that an increase of the vertical stress and a decrease of the horizontal
stress will enlarge the radius of the circle. Finally the circle intersects the limit state shear stress
and the observed soil part fails. It is even possible that the horizontal stress exceeds the vertical
stress in such a way that a circle appears that intersects with the limit state shear stress. This
means that the horizontal stress must act between ratio boundaries with the vertical stress to
result in a circle that does not intersect the limit state shear stress. These ratio boundaries are
well known from literature (e.g. [1]) as the active (Ka) and passive (Kp) soil coefficient. In this
supplement the ratio boundaries are called K1 and K2. The soil cohesion c and the internal
friction angle define the limit state shear stress . In this supplement it is assumed that the soil
cohesion c is zero (c=0). As a consequence the ratio boundaries are determined by:
K 1 v < h < K 2 v
with
1 sin
K1 =
1 + sin
1 + sin
K2 =
1 sin
In the initial situation the vertical stress is determined by the dead weight of the soil overburden:
v = h
= dead weight of the soil
The state horizontal soil coefficient K0 and the vertical stress determine the horizontal stress:
h = K 0 v
limit state shear stress
Mohrs stress circle
c
h
Figure 165. Stress illustration with Mohr's stress circle and the limit state shear stress.
Next, the grout pressure increases. As Figure 164 shows this influences the stresses in the
observed soil part. Due to the pressure a radial stress rr and a tangential stress tt occurs in
the observed soil part. The radial stress rr has an angle with the vertical axis, while the
tangential stress has an angle with the horizontal axis. It can be shown that due to the increase

of the radial stress rr is a compressive stress, while the tangential stress tt is a tensile stress.
This is understandable when the soil around the lining is thought to be a ring with a radial
pressure from the inside. The radial stress rr is determined by:
r2
rr = s2
r
where:
rs = radius of the tunnel
r = radial distance to the centre of the tunnel
The tangential stress is determined by:
tt = rr
The direction of the radial stress is equal to the direction of the vertical stress if the angle is
zero (on the vertical axis). As a consequence the direction of the tangential stress is equal to that
of the horizontal stress. In all other cases where the angle is not equal to zero, the radial and
tangential stress have to be transformed to the vertical and the horizontal stress. This is done by
use of Mohrs stress circle. In Figure 166 this illustrated for the vertical component. In the case
that the angle is zero, the vertical stress is equal to the radial stress. In the case that the angle is
90 the vertical stress is equal to the tangential stress. In the case where the angle is in-between
0 and 90 there is also a shear stress .
tt
rr
Mohrs stress circle

Figure 166. Illustration how to determine the vertical stress from the radial and tangential stresses.
A direct relation can be used to determine the several stress components:

v = rr cos 2 + tt sin 2
h = rr sin 2 + tt cos 2
= ( tt rr ) cos sin
As a result in the observed soil part the stress distribution occurs as shown in Figure 167. The
grout pressure influences the initial soil stresses. As a consequence the circle through the
occurred stresses changes. In the figure the circle radius increases and the distance between the
circle and the limit state shear stress becomes smaller. From the new stress distribution a
relation is obtained to verify the intersection with the limit state shear stress. This is reached by
determining the main stresses 1 and 2.

The centre of the stress circle is the average value of the normal stresses of the vertical and
horizontal component:
( + h ) + ( v + v )
M = h
, M = 0
2
The radius of the stress circle is obtained from the difference between the vertical stress
component and the middle point:
RM = ( v + v M ) 2 + 2
The main stresses are:
1 = M + RM , 2 = M R M
limit state shear stress
Mohrs stress circle

v+v,
RM
c
2
h+h,
Figure 167. Superposition of the stresses of the initial soil stresses and the influence of the grout pressure.
From the main stresses 1 and 2 it is known that 2 has to be in-between the ratio boundaries K1
and K2 with 1 to result in a circle that does not intersect with the limit state shear stress:
K 1 1 < 2 < K 2 1
If the main stress 2 reaches one of these ratio boundaries the soil is assumed to fail.
C.3
Example to illustrate the calculation of stresses
h = 20000mm
= 10e-6N/mm3 (limit state analysis without ground water influence)
r = 7500mm
K0 = 0.5
rs = 5000mm
= 0.025MPa
= 25 , c = 0
The ratio boundaries K1 and K2 are:
1 sin
1 sin( 25)
K1 =
=
= 0.406
1 + sin
1 + sin(25)
1 + sin
K2 =
= 2.464
1 sin

At the angle =0 the depth d is:
d = h r cos = 20000 7500 * 1 = 12500mm
The initial stress distribution at the depth d:
v = 12500 * 10e 6 = 0.125MPa
h = 0.5 * 0.125 = 0.0625MPa
The radial and tangential stresses due to the grout pressure:
5000 2
rr = tt = 0.025
= 0.011MPa
7500 2
The contribution of the radial and tangential stresses to the vertical and horizontal stresses:
v = rr cos 2 + tt sin 2 = 0.011MPa
h = rr sin 2 + tt cos 2 = 0.011MPa
= ( tt rr ) cos sin = 0
The centre and radius of Mohrs stress circle:
( + h ) + ( v + v ) (0.125 + 0.011) + (0.0625 0.011)
M = h
=
= 0.0938MPa
2
2
RM = ( v + v M ) 2 + 2 = (0.125 + 0.011 0.0938) 2 + 0 2 = 0.0423MPa
The main stresses:
1 = M + RM = 0.1361MPa
2 = M RM = 0.0514MPa
The ratio between the main stresses is:
2
= 0.376
1
This ratio is not in-between the ratio boundaries K1 and K2. This means that the observed soil
part is assumed to fail.
The same exercise is done for the angle = 25 .
d = h r cos = 20000 7500 * cos(25) = 13200mm
v = 13200 * 10e 6 = 0.132MPa
h = 0.5 * 0.132 = 0.066MPa
5000 2
= 0.011MPa
7500 2
v = rr cos 2 + tt sin 2 = 0.0071MPa
rr = tt = 0.025
h = rr sin 2 + tt cos 2 = 0.0071MPa

= ( tt rr ) cos sin = 0.0085MPa
M =
(0.132 + 0.0071) + (0.066 0.0071)

= 0.099MPa
2

RM = (0.132 + 0.0071 0.099) 2 + 0.0085 2 = 0.041MPa
1 = M + RM = 0.141MPa
2 = M RM = 0.059MPa
The ratio between the main stresses is:
2
= 0.418
1
This ratio is in-between the ratio boundaries. Therefore this soil part is assumed not to fail.
C.4
The failure interface of the soil
The procedure in the former paragraph is used to identify the stress distribution around the
lining. In the example of the former paragraph it is shown that at an arbitrary angle and at an
arbitrary distance from the tunnel the stress situation can be calculated. As a result it is known
everywhere in the soil whether or not the soil is assumed to fail. At a line from the centre of the
tunnel with a certain angle there is a location where the calculation result switches from failed
to not failed. This is the so-called failure interface. If this calculation is made for many angles
the total failure interface becomes visible. This exercise is performed in this chapter. The
geometry is used from the example in the former paragraph.
-10000
-5000
5000
10000
-5000
-10000
failed
-15000
-20000
-25000
Figure 168. The failure interface of the soil.
Figure 168 shows the result of the calculations of many spots in the soil. If the result of the
calculation is failure of the soil, then the location is painted grey. From the figure it is clear that
a zone above the tunnel shows failure. This is due to the lower initial stresses in the soil
compared with deeper locations. The grey area has the shape of a triangle with a rounded top.
The slope sides of the triangle have an angle of about 60 with the horizontal axis.
Another question is when the failure starts to occur due to the grout pressure. From the same
example data it can be found that when =0.0103MPa the soil area at the top of the ring starts
to fail. The initial effective (without water) vertical pressure at the top of the tunnel is

v=0.150MPa. This means that is only 7% of the acting initial vertical effective soil stress.
The grout pressure at that spot should balance the acting water pressure and the effective soil
pressure. An increase of the grout pressure with 7% of the effective vertical soil pressure results
in the very local failure of the soil. The grout pressure at that time is e.g.:
Water pressure: 0.150MPa
Effective vertical soil pressure: 0.150MPa
7% of effective vertical soil pressure: 0.01MPa
Total pressure (called critical pressure): 0.31MPa
This is only an increase of 3% of the initial vertical stresses in the soil.
In practice the grout pressure is very often aimed on the local pressure at the top of the tunnel. In
these cases the grout pressure is set to a value related to that pressure only. It is obvious that the
grout pressure can also be too low and causes failure. In that case the effective soil pressure is
not balanced. This case could be analysed with a negative .
It turns out that the grout pressure should not cause a of 0.0133MPa or 7% of the initial
effective vertical soil stress at the side of the tunnel to avoid failure in the soil. In that case the
horizontal soil stress strongly reduces. This is with a radius of 5000mm equal to -9% of the
initial effective vertical stress at the top of the lining.
Figure 169. Comparison between theory and FEM analysis.
Large diameter effect.

The investigated tunnel diameter is quite large. The following analysis therefore assumes that
the tangential stress change due to the grout pressure change is equal to zero (tt=0). The
result of this analysis shows higher allowable pressure changes. This is expected because of the
elimination of the tensile stress change influence of tt.
+ = 0.088MPa; 58% of effective vertical stress or 30% of total vertical stress
- = -0.037MPa; -15% of effective vertical stress at the side or 25% of effective vertical stress
at the top.

Figure 169 shows the results of both theory and FEM analysis for the GHT. The failure surface
of both analyses show similar tendencies, although locations somewhat differ. The FEM
analysis includes pressure redistribution of . This means that along the lining circumference
the amplitude of is not constant. In the analytical analysis it is assumed that is constant
along the lining circumference. Still the comparison shows confirmation in the failure theory
that a triangle shaped failure interface with a rounded top occurs.
C.5
The consequence of the soil failure
Due to the loading on the lining this lining deforms. The deformation causes the lining to
interact with the surrounding soil. This is the so-called lining soil interaction. It is often assumed
that the soil reaction is a linear reaction. This means that the soil responds linear to the acting
deformations. If the soil shows local failure due to the mechanism described in this supplement,
the local support of the soil to the lining decreases.
Results with active top support
Results with failed top support
Figure 170. Deformations and tangential bending moments for equal load cases but active or failed top support.
It is known that the resulting deformation and the internal forces in the lining very much depend
on the support of the soil. The soil support may reduce the internal forces up to e.g. 80%. It can
be imagined that the decrease of the soil to support the lining means that the deformations and

the internal forces in the lining increase very rapidly. This could result in a decrease of the safety
of the lining.
In the former paragraph it was shown that the soil might fail at the top of the tunnel first. The
question is what differences this means in deformations, internal forces and safety.
From shallow tunnel analysis it is known that an absence of the top support results in an
ovalisation where the vertical diameter increases while the horizontal diameter decreases (socalled standing egg). The examples in the former paragraphs show a case with much more
overburden. In case that the soil fails above the tunnel, a similar situation occurs: the top support
decreases. This means that the tunnel can deform to the standing egg shape.
In the standing egg shape the vertical equilibrium is arranged by soil reaction not at the top of
the tunnel, but more on the shoulders of the lining. This means that maximums in tangential
bending moments are transported from the top to the shoulders or even more sideways. Figure
170 shows the results of a ring analysis in the uplift loading case. The left figures show the
results when the top support is intact. The right figures show the results when the top support
decreases due to the soil failure. The initial loading on both rings is equal. It is obvious that the
shape of the tunnel is totally the opposite ovalisation. Also the location of the maximum
tangential bending moments differ very much. In the calculation with the active top support a
maximum tangential bending moment at the inside of the tunnel appears at the top of the ring.
This maximum has moved sideways in the case that top support is absent. This means that
tangential stresses due to the tangential bending moment might cause tensile stresses (or lower
compressive stresses) at the sides of the ring compared to the situation with active soil support.
This could be the initiation of local cracking at the inside of the ring at the shoulders and the
side of the lining.
Structural analyses observed in practice hardly take into account this load case, while it is a case
that could really occur.
C.6
Conclusion
In many structural analyses of the lining it is assumed that the soil supports the lining. From this
supplement it is clear that local failure in the soil can occur due to injection pressure around the
lining. As a consequence the local soil support of the lining changes. In case of a local soil
failure the soil support might decrease.
The consequence of a local decrease of the soil support can have tremendous influence on the
structural forces and the deformation of the lining. It is illustrated that the location of the
maximum tangential bending moments changes and that the deformation of the lining shows a
very different shape.
In the given examples the structural analysis of the lining show an increase of the horizontal
diameter and a decrease of the vertical diameter, if full soil support is taken into account.
Involvement of the local soil support decrease at the top of the lining results in the opposite
deformation. The horizontal diameter decreases, while the vertical diameter increases. The
lying egg becomes a standing egg.

This phenomenon of the standing egg is already known from structural analysis with the uplift
loading case with very shallow soil overburden. It is illustrated that in case with larger
overburden the soil support failure at the top of the ring shows similar behaviour to the very
shallow cases.
Reference appendix C
[1] Verruijt A., Soil mechanics B22, DUM, Delft
APPENDIX D: The linear soil spring reduction factor based on elastic

continuums
Very often the spring stiffness is defined, based on a differential equation, as:
E
kr = s s
r
with:
= soil stiffness (oedometer stiffness)
Es
r
= tunnel radius
= soil stiffness reduction factor
s
The reduction factor s is discussed in this appendix.
Deformation modes
Tunnel deformations are distinguished in three modes:
Mode 0: uniform deformation.
Mode 1: total translation (floating), which is not included in this appendix.
Mode 2: ovalisation.
Continuum model versus spring model
The soil around the tunnel is modelled as a continuum or springs. Main difference is that the
springs do not interact with each other, while this is established in the continuum model.
Assumed tunnel geometry:
Radius
= 1000mm.
Soil size
= 10000mm * 10000mm.
= 50Mpa.
Es
Figure 171. Continuum mesh of the soil around the tunnel.
Problem
What is the value of the soil stiffness reduction factor s when deformations from the continuum
model should be equal to the deformations in the spring model.

Analysis of uniform compression: mode 0
F=1000N
F/2
F
F
F
F
F/2
Figure 172. Uniform pressure in mode 0.
Figure 173. Radial displacements due to the uniform pressure.
The average radial displacement of a node at the tunnel is 77.716mm (Figure 173). The node
force is 1000N. The nodal equivalent spring stiffness is:
1000
F
= 12.867 N / mm
kn = =
u 77.716
The surface around a node is 1/24 of the circles circumference times the model depth (=1mm):
An = 241 2r = 241 2 1000 = 261.8mm 2
The spring stiffness per square millimetre is:
k
k r = n = 0.049 0.05 N / mm 3
An
From the basic equation for soil stiffness it is known:
E
k r = s s = s * 0.05 N / mm 3
r
It is concluded that the reduction factor s = 1 in mode 0. This value confirms the expectation
because the differential equation used to derive is based on the uniform compression mode.

Analysis of ovalisation: mode 2
F=1000N
F/2 0.86F
0.5F
Figure 174. Ovalisation pressure in mode 2.
F
igure 175. Radial deformations due to the ovalisation pressure.
Table 39. Results of mode 2.
node Fr[N]
ur[mm]
1000
866
500
0
500
866
1000
117.24
109.274
95.527
90.14
96.686
110.486
116.817
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
kr
[N/mm3]
0.0325
0.0309
0.020
0
0.020
0.030
0.0327
s
0.65
0.62
0.40
0
0.40
0.60
0.65
Figure 176. Radial displacements in the frame

analysis due to mode 2 and = 0.65.
The reduction factor at the positions with the extreme displacements (0 and 90 ) is about 65%
(s=0.65, Table 39). At the other angles the reduction factor is smaller.

In the following example a frame analysis is applied with the mode 2 load and a soil stiffness
with a reduction factor s = 0.65. Input parameter is the ovalisation stress 2. This value is the
value at the top and side of the ring. The ovalisation stress 2 = 1000N / An = 3.8197MPa. It
turns out that the displacements agree very well with the continuum model (compare the radial
displacements in Figure 176 with the radial displacements in Figure 175).
Conclusions
When the soil is modelled with springs instead of a continuum, special attention should be given
to the spring stiffness. It has turned out that the equation of kr = sEs/r is useful in a frame
analysis. A distinguish is made between uniform compression (mode 0) and ovalisation (mode
2). In mode 0 the soil stiffness reduction factor s = 1. In mode 2 the soil stiffness reduction
factor s = 0.65.
Use of the reduction factor in a full analysis
In a full analysis with compression and ovalisation it is observed that deformations due to
ovalisation are dominant above uniform displacements. Therefor the soil stiffness reduction
factor s=0.65 should be used in a full analysis.
Curriculum vitae
Surname:
First Names:
Date of birth:
Birth place:
Nationality:
Education:
1984-1990
1990-1995
Prizes:
1996
2000
Blom
Cornelis Bernhard Marco
18 April 1972
Rotterdam
Dutch
VWO (comprehensive secondary school)

Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Graduation thesis:
Longitudinal structural behaviour of the concrete segmented lining of shield
driven tunnels
Graduation prize 1996 from the ENCI jubilee fund

Innovation and creativity award Holland Railconsult for the work Three
dimensional modeling and full-scale laboratory tests of the lining of tunnels in
Dutch soils
Work experience:
1992-1994
Construction inspector, part-time
1993-1995
Student Assistant Delft University of Technology, Project Education
1993-1996
Student Assistant Delft University of Technology, Civil Engineering Computer
Information Technology
1995
Trainee at Holland Railconsult, Tunneling group
1996-date
Project Engineer Holland Railconsult on tunneling projects.
2000-2003
Part-time Assistant Researcher, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Concrete structures

Design Philosophy of Concrete Linings For Tunnels in Soft Soils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Design Philosophy of Concrete Linings For Tunnels in Soft Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design philosophy of concrete linings

for tunnels in soft soils

Notes by Jon Hurt.

Design philosophy of concrete linings

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

Cornelis Bernhard Marco Blom

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Published and distributed by: DUP Science

geresulteerd in de uplift loading case. Deze belasting is vervolgens relatief eenvoudig te

Ook is een vergelijking gemaakt tussen modelresultaten en praktijkmetingen. De vergelijking

STATE OF THE ART .........................................................................................................3

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVE...............................................................19

ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR COUPLED RINGS IN SOIL ...............................23

INTERPRETATION OF THE ANALYTICAL MODELS ...........................................41

ANALYSES OF THE LINING WITH LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS

SEGMENTED LINING MODELS IN SOIL: GENERAL LOADING

COMPARISON OF FULL-SCALE TESTS WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS ...93

MEASUREMENTS AND CALCULATIONS OF ASSEMBLING STRESSES AT

OBSERVATION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LINING........................................133

10 EXAMPLES OF THE ADDITIONAL DAMAGE MECHANISMS...........................153

10.2.3 Conclusion on uneven support crack mechanisms...................................166

(half) segmental width

stress correction factor for the soil stresses

radial stress at the side of the ring

Botlek Railway Tunnel

earth pressure balance

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

State of the Art

Design & Construct

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design & Construct

Figure 2. Project responsibility for the two main types of contracts.

Design and methods

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Applied engineering models

2.3.1 Ring models

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Couplings in the lateral joints

Location coupling implementation

Radial normal stiffness

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Jack force introduction in the lining

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

The objective of dowel and socket

The objective of the masonry layout of the segmented lining

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Quality loss by cracking

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Placements of the key segment

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Eccentric positioning of TBM jacks

Unevenness of the lateral joint

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Tolerances of the sizes of the segments

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils

Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils