# Structural design models for tunnels

JI. Duddeck

J. Erdmann

!Jniversitat Braunschweig, Germany synopsis I he ITA working group on structural design models for wnnelling will publish in 1982 the replies to a questionnaire in synopsis form. In continuation of that work the results of an investigation into the most common design models for soft ground tunnels are given by way of a comparative review of progress to date in this field. The main differences in the assumptions with regard to the different models are stated. Diagrams for the hoop forces, hending moments and radial displacements illustrate the differences in the design values evaluated for three different models - the continuum model, the Muir Wood design model and the bedded beam model without bedding at the crown region. A comparison with free parameters necessitates analytical solutions, so only circular crosssections are investigated. Nevertheless, the results of the investigation may also be valid for non-circular crosssections and more refined numerical analyses. There is a trend towards agreement on the basic assumptions and on the design model in regard to both shallow and deep tunnels. In the period of planning and tendering for a tunnel structure the engineer has to rely apart from his experience - on a structural model, from which he may derive criteria to establish whether the design is suitable, safe and economical. One of the working groups of the International Tunnelling Association (ITA) chose the task

geology

**site investigation line and brientation _ ground characteristics:
**

prim. stress, strength, fissures, anisotropy, etc.

Irock mechanics

experience estimation mechanical model

probing and

excavation method structural elements -Ull

I

~I

o.j

of gathering information on design models for tunnelling that are currently applied. A questionnaire sought data on site investigations, assumed loads, static systems, safety concepts, design criteria and in-situ monitoring for four different types of tunnel structure. The replies to the questionnaire will be published in 1982.1 From this first step information is disseminated on an international level as to the kinds of structural models that are available and applied. As would be expected, the replies reflect national developments in the art of tunnelling, traditions and experience. The present paper is part of a second step intended to compare the design models, analysing why and in what ways they differ from one another. The scope of the comparison is at present restricted as it deals only with tunnelling models for soft ground and that part of the full structural model (Fig. 1) from which criteria are drawn for the design of the tunnel lining. The reason for the first restriction is, simply, that for soft ground internationally applied models are fairly well defined and more developed than those for tunnels in hard rock. With regard to the second restriction, the authors are well aware that safe tunnelling involves much more than the selection of a suitable mechanical model, but all the other parts of the complete structural model defy translation into objective analysis and mathematical language. Papers that applied a much broader approach to all the complex aspects of tunnelling, including different design models, have been presented. 2,3 In many instances the stress-strain-deformation problem of a tunnelling procedure can be solved only by the application of a numerical analysis, e.g. the finiteelement method. The geometry of the opening and the stratigraphic layers of the ground are in most cases not simple. Non-linear material behaviour is involved. The consecutive phases of the process of driving and support are important for the final stresses in the linings. Comparison of the results on the basis of numerical solutions is, however, very difficult and does not yield any insight into dependence on soil and design parameters. The analysis given here is, therefore, additionally restricted to solutions for circular cross-sections. Since the main objective is directed towards the basic assumptions of the models the conclusions are also more generally valid for non-circular cross-sections and for numerical analyses. The following questions are to be answered for the different design models for tunnels in soft ground: Which basic assumptions are applied to derive a model? Which are generally agreed? Which are different? To what extent are the design criteria (thrust, bending moments, displacements) a.ffected by the different assumptions? Basic assumptions for structural design models for tunnels in soft ground Soft ground requires immediate support as, for example, in driving a shield-excavated tunnel or by applying shotcrete with the short-time closure of the full ring. Therefore, general agreement exists on the following basic assumptions, (1) For the design model of the linings it may be sufficient to consider only a cross-section on the assumption of plane strain conditions for the lining and the ground. (2) The active soil pressures on the lining are taken as equal to the primary stresses in the undisturbed ground because the ground is soft. Hence, it is assumed that for the final stage (years after construction) the ground will eventually return to the same condition as before the tunnelling, except for the passive stresses due to the deflection of the lining. Changing groundwater levels, traffic 83

safety concept _~ failure hypotheses

I I

..verification" of tunnel design

1\iO"C;l-----.....

in situ monitoring: deformations stop?

I

for the actual state only, __ unknown safety margin

~ ....._..._ "snfe "

**translation of reality into design model marked by
**

Fig. 1 Designprocedure for tunnelling (structural design model includes sections marked with vertical bar)

I

'.

l~

H

T

,~ eT

Fig. 2

Plane strain continuum model

H

bond either for radial and tangential deformations or for radial deformations only. With this assumption the model complies with the equilibrium conditions as well as with the compatibility conditions at the boundary between the lining and the ground. This is quite different from the concept of introducing a lining resistance, expressed in terms of a force, proposed by the Austrian school. Here only equilibrium conditions are considered. (4) Because of the lining-ground relationship deformation of the lining results in reaction stresses in the ground. A continuum model includes this effect automatically. For a beam model bedding springs with appropriate bedding moduli have to be applied. The bond at every place around the lining gives rise to a reduction in the 'loading' ground pressure where the lining deflects inwards. If such a 'load reduction' were not allowed, bedding (and the equivalent of this for the continuum model) has to be neglected in those parts of the cross-section where inward deformation occurs, i.e. principally at the crown (see Figs. 3 and 5). (5) The material behaviour of ground and lining is generally assumed as being elastic. More refined theories may also include non-linear and plastic material laws, which, however, in most cases require the application of numerical methods (e.g. FEM). For more detailed discussions of the assumptions the papers given in the list of references should be studied.

Gy

-D-Gh t

Kr

Fig. 3

t

= canst.

Gy Gh

= 'Y H

=

KoGy

Bedded ring model; crown without bedding'?

vibration, etc., may be the cause of this. For future monitoring results may offer the opportunity to ascertain Al which cases (e.g. type"of soil and depth of tunnel) this ~ssumption is too conservative. Different intermediate situations influenced by the driving procedure and the placing of the supporting elements are neglected. (3) Between the lining and the ground there exists a

Contributions to development of design models for tunnels with circular cross-sections The following brief report on progress to date is inevitably incomplete, a number of important contributions having been omitted. Until 1960 most tunnels were designed, if by analysis and not merely by experience alone, by methods that arbitrarily assumed 'loads' acting on the lining. Even allowance for bedding forces was taken as given forces. Hence, compatibility conditions between ground and lining were not considered. Schmids in 1926 seems to have first analysed an elastic continuum to take into account the interaction between ground and lining, but his work was not recognized by practical engineers, possibly because he considered a rather thick lining. In Voellmy's (1937) doctoral thesis6 a thinner lining is assumed, but the omission of the tangential components of the earth's pressure and the tangential displacements means that the results obtained do not comply with the

N

M

max

y

= volume

weight

Fig. 4 Plane strain continuum model and characteristic distribution of radial displacement, u, hoop forces, N, and bending moments, M 84

Mu

y = volume weight

Fig. 5 Bedded ring model for shallow tunnels without tension bedding at crown!" (distribution of radial displacement, u, ground reaction pressure, 0B, hoop forces, N, and bending moments, M)

equilibrium and compatibility conditions of an elastic continuum. In 1944 Bu1l7 introduced the assumption, which is valid for shallow tunnels with limited overburden, that tension bedding in the crown region should be neglected. The bedded beam calculation is very tedious because of the proposed evaluation and superposition of influence functions for 16 single forces along the ring. Moreover, overall equilibrium in the vertical direction is gained only by a downward rigid-body displacement. Engelbreth'' in Norway had in 1957 already derived a closed formula for stress and deformation of the lining deduced from a continuum model (Fig. 2). In 1961 Morgan'' assumed a priori that the circular lining deforms into an elliptical mode. Thus, tangential stresses and the corresponding deformations are omitted. From this intuitive approach some parts of the full solution for the continuum model are lost. The resulting bending moments are theoretically too small. In 1964 Schulze and Duddeck'" published complete and closed solutions for the model (Fig. 3) intended for application for shallow tunnels with limited overburden. Hence, bedding at the crown is omitted where tension springs may cause load reductions. Results were given for the direct design in diagrams for bending moments, hoop forces and radial displacements for those three points of the lining at which values of a relative maximum occur. The radial bedding modulus, Kr, is still a free parameter, and the tangential stresses may be included in or omitted from the load parameters. In 1966 Windelsll extended the approach of Schulze and Duddeck to take into account second-order effects (geometrical non-linearity) and an approximation for predeformation of the lining owing to the erection procedure, e.g. of tubbing rings. Thus, buckling instability is also covered for the model shown in Fig. 3. Further investigations of geometrical and physical non-linear effects (e.g. plastic hinges) have been published by German workers (not referred to here). In 1967 Windels12 published an extensive and complete treatise on the circular tunnel in an elastic continuum (Fig. 2), geometrical non-linearity and pre-deformation also being covered. Bending moments, hoop forces and radial deflections were given in diagrams for the cos 2 ifJ stress mode either with full bonding or excluding tangential stresses. The ratio of relative stiffnesses of ground and lining is taken as a free parameter. Peck13 in 1969 proposed a semi-empirical approach that,

in essence, is not very different from the model given in Fig. 3 and the solutions presented in 1964,10 together with the effects of compressibility stiffness and flexibility stiffness. Tangential ground stresses were not taken into consideration. Muir Wood14 in 1975 gave a corrected version of Morgan's'' more intuitive approach', again assuming an elliptical deformation mode. The tangential ground stresses are included, but that part of the radial deformation which is due to the tangential stresses is omitted (reference to previous work8,12 would have enabled the correct model (Fig. 2) to have been reached). Making allowances for some pre-decompression of the ground around the opening before the lining is placed, Muir Wood proposed to take only 50% (or two-thirds, as Panet had suggested in 1973) of the initial ground stresses into consideration. The moments may be reduced even more by reducing the lining stiffness by an amount equivalent to the effect of less rigid hinges (results from this method are compared with other design methods later - see Figs. 12 and 15). In 1976 CurtislS supplemented Muir Wood's forrnulae'" by the inclusion of radial deformation due to tangential stress. In addition, some valuable extensions in regard to time-dependent behaviour (creep) were given in simple expressions for the change of stiffness ratio with time. The model proposed is that of Fig. 2. Einstein and Schwartz'P proposed, after extensive study of the available methods for the design of deep tunnels, a simplified analysis that is derived from the continuum model (Fig. 2) and yields practically the same results as those of Engelbreth'' and Windels12 (see later). Ahrens and co-workers!" investigated both models of Figs. 2 and 3. Appropriate bedding moduli were derived for the beam model (Fig. 3, but with full bedding also at the crown) that yield the same solutions as those for the continuum model of Fig. 2. Tangential bedding has to be introduced. Differences either for full bond or for tangential slip are given. The results are incorporated into the German recommendations.f To summarize progress it may be stated that the methods available are simple enough (even with design graphs) for practical application, that the design engineer may choose either the model given in Fig. 2 (for moderately deep tunnels) or that given in Fig. 3 (for shallow tunnels without reduction of ground pressure at the crown), that the free - parameters also allow consideration of a reduced initial ground stress (say, 50% or even 30%) for deep tunnels in stiffer ground, taking into account some decompression at 85

**, .$~ tunnel face or even consideration of creep, and that we
**

have succeeded in providing a complete transition from the bedded ring model to the continuum model, and hence to numerical models such as those of the finite-element method. Comparison of design values derived by different methods The graphs presented here show the effects of different assumptions for the main models discussed above. The continuum model (1) (Fig. 4) is considered either with full bonding between lining and ground or with tangential slip along the lining. Methods proposed previouslyl2,l5,l6,l7 yield virtually identical values. This model is applied at present for tunnel design generally in the U.S.A. and for moderately deep tunnels in soft ground in continental Europe. The continuum lljproach (2) with an elliptical deformation model is included in the investigation since it seems to be that which is applied most often in the United Kingdom. The bedding beam model (3) for shallow tunnels with no reduction of the crown pressure'? is the method that was xaioned most often by continental European countries. 1 IWfery narrow linings the extension of this model to the geometrically non-linear methodll is applied at least in Germany. In Japan similar models (Fig. 5) are applied for clay soils or shallow tunnels, whereas Terzaghi's parabolic vertical load assumption is assumed for tunnels in sandy soil.

Ebaid and Hammadl8 compared the bending moments that result from the different theories, including the proposals of Engelbreth," Peckl3 and the Russians Davidov, Zurabove and Bugajeva. In homogeneous soil with earth pressures caused only by volume weight, 1, the following stress components act along an undisturbed circular linelO (for notation see Figs. 4 or 5). Radial

aT

= PH(1+Ko)

+

t

[-R(3+Ko)coSf/>+2H(1-Ko)cos2<1> )cos3<1>l

-R[1-Ko Tangential

at

= 11(1-Ko)

[-Rsin<l> + 2Hsin2<1> Rsin3<1>l -

The stresses assumed for the different design models are given in Fig. 6: they are approximations and, for model 3, are due to the elimination of buoyancy. The stress distribution for model 3 in Fig. 6 is more refined and is also valid for very shallow tunnels, say, H = 2R. The moments change signs, as they should, for H < 2.1 if, for example, Ko = 0.5. In Fig. 7 the explicit formulae for the continuum model are given. The alternative values for tangential slip should be

Go

=

const.

Gr

tyH(1-Kol cos 2IP tyH(1-Kol

e,

sin 2IP

CD CV

Q)

continuum model 1171

1 IyH(1+Kol

Muir Wood

1141

1 IyH(1+Kol

tYH(1-Kolcos21P

bedded beam

1101

Fig. 6 line

1 Iy(1+Ko

l( H-0.3R 3+Ko) ~Y[H(1-Kol - 0.3 R(3+1<ol)cos2IP IyH(1-K l 1+Ko o

sin 2IP

Radial, ar, and tangential, at, stresses assumed as primary stresses along undisturbed circular

FULL BOND

bending moment max M

TANGENTIAL

SLIP

=

hoop forces

No = const. =

max N - No

2+(1-Kol

2(1-vl (1-2v)(1+vl

~ EA

=

radial displacements

Uo

=const. uZIP

= =

12+ R'/EJ 3 -2v (1+vl(3-4vl

_1_ EtR3 1+V EJ

+

.§A. R2 EJ

+

1

max

Ec:R3 EJ

3-4v

6(5-6vl

2 + (1+v)(3-4vl

EcR3 EJ

Fig. 7

Results for continuum model (Fig. 4) and primary stresses as in Fig. 617

86

FULL

BOND 4+0.342 a

TANGENTIAL SLIP 3.56+Q285a

T

H

l~+·.~

\

l+)

.

bending moment

'..... t .. ·/ hoop forces

I

max M

=

o

Fig. 8

radial displacement

max

U2<p

=

12+1.03a ~=EcR/EA

10.7 + 0.855 a

a= EcR3/EJ

Designvalues for continuum model and Fig. 7 for special Poisson's ratio of ground v

= 0.3

**Generally bending moment max M = hoop force at crown N = at axis
**

N

Special case v = 0.3

6

+

0.481 (1

1.3 + 0.556(1 3.9 + (1

=

**radial displacement max u =
**

(1 = EcR3, EJ

Fig. 9

Designvalues for model

214

and special case of Poisson's ratio of ground v = 0.3

N ::: nGv R n

1.0

O'v= y·H .8 O'h

= Ko

Ov

.6 .4

CD

®

1

Ahrens Curtis Windels

.2 0 .001

Einstein

.002

.005

.01

.02

.05

.1

.2

.5

2

5

~= EcR/EA

Fig. 10 Hoop forces for continuum model and full bond (No = const, for pure compression, max N including the bending mode part of soil pressure see Fig. 8) (v = 0:3 and Ko = 0.5)

considered as an upper limit since in this case no tangential components of the soil pressure are transferred from the ground to the lining. In Fig. 8 the maxima of the design values are evaluated for Poisson's ratio v = 0.3. In Fig. 9 the equivalent formulae for Muir Wood's

proposal are given (for differences compare with Fig. 8). In Figs. 10 and 11 the hoop forces are shown as functions of (3, the ratio of soil stiffness over the compressibility stiffness of the lining. In Fig. 10 for very soft ground or very stiff linings (small (3) the hoop forces 87

**, are equal to the value given by the simple ring formula maxN=
**

avo R

They decline with stiffer ground and weak lining compressibility (larger ~). The effect of the bending stiffness of the lining, EI, represented by the ratio 0:, is negligible. This also explains why the hoop forces do not differ greatly with the different models (see also ao in Fig. 6). The derivation of the max N curve for (E) in the region of larger ~ (i.e. away from the region of application) is due to the additional consideration of bending and compressibility stiffness in the approach to (E). If complete tangential slip is introduced between the lining and the ground (Fig. 11), the cos 2cp mode of the radial stresses does not produce additional hoop forces, at least not for stiffer ground or softer linings (larger ~). Only

for very stiff linings (very small ji) do the hoop forces change along the lining. In Figs. 12-15 the maximum bending moments evaluated for the different models are compared and the region of practical values for the stiffness ratio 0:, e.g. ground stiffness, Ee, over bending stiffness, EI, of the lining, is indicated. Fig. 12 shows that for the continuum model the assumption of tangential slip yields design values that are too conservative. Therefore, full bonding should always be assumed. As is already known, the moments fall dramatically with stiffer ground or more flexible lining (larger 0:). Muir Wood's proposal implies much smaller moments. As was stated earlier, this is caused by the neglect of the additional deformation of the tangential forces. Moreover, Muir Wood14 proposed to reduce the stresses that act on the lining and that cause bending; the curves shown in Figs. 12 and 15 do not include such reductions.

N '= n C5v R

n

hoop forces o.=I.103~

.8

0.=

I-' .103

0 -t:--0 _ ..... HIR

C5h

A1 -tVh= oVv

H

1

=00

C:Sv=y· '" H K I ;...--0 H/R=4 \.!::.!.

.6

.1.

.2

CD

1

j

Ahrens Curtis Einstein Windels

03

®

Muir Wood Schulze/Duddeck .02

] max N with 0.= 2.103 ~

.05

.1

.2

.5

~= EcR/EA

2

5

Fig.11 Hoop forces for continuum model and tangential slip. (No = const. for pure compression, max N including bending mode - see Fig. 8) (v = 0.3 and Ko = 0.5). Also shown are hoop forces for models 2 and 3

m .14 slip .12

1

c, =y.H

continuum model

H

1

.10

.08

.06

.01.

CD

®

.1 .2

I

Uh = Ko' Uv

CD

Ahrens Curtis Einstein Windels Muir

1171 /15/ /16/

/12/ /14/

.02

Wood

o

.5

2

5

10

20

Fig. 12 Maximum bending moment as function of flexibility stiffness ratio, "'. Continuum model (Fig. 4) with Poisson's ratio v = 0.3 for proposals 1 and 2 88

~

m .14

max M

mOyR2 continuum model

.12

.10

~t

H

_t_

r

I

non - bedded roof

o, = yH

.08

e, =

Ko' e,

beam model

Q)

.06

{ Ahrens

.04 .02

CD

Q)

**Curtis Einstein Windels Schulze/Duddeck 1101 Kr
**

J

=

EslR 10 20

0

.1

.2

.5

2

5

SO

100

200

500

a. = EcR31 EJ

Fig. 13 Maximum bending moments for continuum model (Fig. 4) (full bond) and for bedded beam model (Fig. 5) (v = 0.3 and Ko = 0.5)

In Fig. 13 the results for the partially bedded beam model (Fig. 5) are compared with those of the continuum model. For the bedding modulus the expression

**is chosen," the stiffness modulus of the ground being
**

Es = Ec (l-v)/(1w)(l-2v)

where Ec is elasticity modulus of the continuum. EslR is larger than the bedding modulus corresponding to the sin 24> mode for a continuum. The results for model 3, which is intended for shallow tunnels, depend on the ratio HIR. The moments are smaller than those for the continuum model in the region of small a: (very soft soil or stiff lining). They are somewhat

larger than those of the continuum model in most of the region of practical application. . Fig. 14 corresponds to Fig. 13, but full slip between the ground and the lining is assumed. Model 3 (Fig. 5) yields much smaller moments than the continuum model. If the tangential stress components are prevented from flowing into the lining, the ground continuum model has to react to them by stress redistribution and additional deformation. Such deformation increases the radial deflections of the lining and, hence, the bending moments. On the other hand, if no tangential stress components are applied to the radially bedded beam model, the bending is smaller and the corresponding deformation does not comply with that of continuum model (1) allowing tangential slip. In Fig. 15 all three models are compared. The partially bedded beam model is evaluated, first, for radial earth

m

.12

1

e;

(5h

H

r

non - bedded roof

.10

= y.H

= Ko·(5y beam model

Q)

.04

of application

.02

o

Q)

.1 .2 .5 2 5 10 20

500

Fig. 14

Bending moments at crown for tangential slip (v = 0.3 and Ko = 0.5)

89

.m

max M continuum model SliP~

.12 .10

/~

full bond Ahrens Curtis Einstein Windels

e,

= y. H

Gh = Ko'crv y,H,R,Ko,Ec.v• see Rg.12

.06 .04 .02

o

o

L-----l""'__;_(

®

Muir Wood 1141 Schulze UU,JU".Ct<. H_I+-R_=---i,.:..-:........-"-__;__--+--+----+=~ 2 5 10 20 SO

.1

.2.5

100

~~~g.-t ..... a. =EcR3/EJ

200

sao

Fig. 15 Maximum bending moments for continuum and bedded beam models. Model 3 alternatively with full acceptance of tangential forces, Ut, by lining or without tangential stress components of ground (v = 0.3 and Ko = 0.5)

pressures only (at = 0) and, secondly, for the application of or as well as at to the lining. The solutions relate to very deep tunnels (HIR = 00). For very small flexibility stiffness ratios a either the solution for full bond or that of Muir Wood is approached. In the parametric region of practical applications the partially bedded beam model yields larger values, though for more realistic values of HIR, e.g. HIR = 4-8, the moments are somewhat smaller (see Fig. 13). Larger values should be expected because model 3 does not imply load reductions at the crown, unlike the continuum model. It has been introduced for the design of shallow tunnels. Applying the full amount of tangential stresses, at, on a lining that is only radially bedded yields moments evidently too conservative for design. Neglecting at, as proposed by Schulze and Duddeck,"" results in moments Aat are for most values of a between the solutions of a bond continuum and Muir Wood's formula. Fig. 16 shows the radial displacement, u, of the lining,

evaluated for a set of parameters of the continuum model by Ahrens and co-workers.V' In accordance with Fig. 12, full bonding yields smaller u. The bending displacement is very much larger than the radial compression by 00 = constant, especially for soft ground or thicker linings (smaller a). Further comments and future work Increasing internationalism has resulted in some convergence of assumptions and types of structural models for soft soil tunnelling. A design model should cover the very complex nature of a tunnelling procedure, though there are many effects on the stresses in the structure, such as those caused by the actual excavation and the erection of the structural elements, that defy translation into a rational model to yield design criteria. Thus, too extensive a refinement of the theoretical design features will encounter natural limits. The engineer's aim of a simple model is additionally justified by being even more

.11

max u = OOv

.16

.12 Assumed values for the parameters: .08 v=O.3 . Ko=O.s R4/EJ = 4 m3/MN

.04

Fig. 16 Example of radial displacements, u , for continuum model stiffness ratio, O!

(1)

plotted against flexibility

90

consistent and honest with regard to the complexity of reality. Yet the question remains as to whether the models cover the actual tunnelling situation well enough for engineering purposes. For future investigations and further discussions the following proposal for application of the different design models may be noted (H is height of tunnel overburden as defined in Fig. 2 and R is radius of a circular tunnel or half the horizontal width for non-circular tunnels). For shallow tunnels

a model without reduction of ground pressure at the crown such as that of Fig. 310 or (3) in Figs. 10-15, or an equivalent continuum model4 may be appropriate. For moderately deep tunnels 4R <H<

the different phases through which a tunnelling process runs? Time and water have a significant effect on the ground pressure that acts on the structure. How can these effects be incorporated into the soil parameters of the model? The properties of shotcrete are also highly timedependent. What models are appropriate for more difficult geometries, such as those for closely adjacent tunnels or cross-sections for underground stations? The finite-element method is a very powerful and far-reaching numerical method, but its results are most sensitive to the assumptions for the physical as well as for the computational model. Here we still have to develop design models that include realistic failure modes of the ground and the structure. Acknowledgment The authors are indebted to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support of the investigations that led to the results published here.

References 1. International Tunnelling Association (ITA). Views on structural design models for tunnelling: synopses of answers to a questionnaire. 1982. 2. Craig R. N. and Muir Wood A. M. A review of tunnel lining practice in the United Kingdom. Supplem. Rep. Transport Road Res. Lab. 335,1978. c. 300 p. 3. Einstein H. H. et al. Improved de~ign of tunnel supports, volumes 1 to 6 (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, 1979-80). 4. Duddeck H. Empfehlungen zur Berechnung von Tunneln im Lockergestein (1980) Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Erd- und Grundbau. Bautecbnik, 1980,349-56; also in Tascbenbucb fur den Tunnelbau 1982 (Essen: Verlag Gluckauf, 1982), 115-44. 5. Schmid H. Statiscbe Probleme des Tunnel- und Druckstollenbaues (Berlin, 1926). 6. Voellmy A. Eingebettete Rohre. Dissertation Zurich, Leeman u. Co., 1937. 7. Bull A. Stresses in the linings of shield-driven tunnels. Trans. Am. Soc. civ. Engrs, Nov. 1944,443-530. 8. Engelbreth K. Beregning av tunnel eller rer med sirkulaert tverrsnitt gjennom homogen jordmasse. Teknisk Ukeblad 108, 1961,625-7. See also Tunnel stress analysis. Correspondence. Geotecbnique, 11, no. 3 1961,246-8 and Bauingenieur, 43, 19<'8, 471. 9. Morgan H. D. A contribution to the analysis of stress in a circular tunnel. Geotecbnique, 11, no. 1, March 1961, 37-46. 10. Schulze H. and Duddeck H. Spannungen in schildvorgetriebenen Tunneln. Beton Stablbetonb., 59, 1964, 169-75. 11. Windels R. Spannungstheorie zweiter Ordnung fur den teilweise gebetteten Kreisring. Bautecbnik, 43, no. 8 1966, 265-74. 12. Windels R. Kreisring im elastischen Kontinuum. Bauingenieur, 42, no. 12 1967,429-39. 13. Peck R. B. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In

the continuum model (Fig. 2) or (1) in Figs. 10-16 may be proposed. Depending on the stiffness of the ground and its long-term behaviour, the full primary stresses may be applied to the structural model. Previous analyses12,15,16,17 or others with a similar approach may be suitable here. ' For deep tunnels, but still entirely in soft ground H>6R a continuum model, but with some reduction of the primary stresses, as proposed by Muir Wood, 14 may be appropriate. Whether 50% or even more should be reduced is still debatable. For all three cases allowances should be made for a tendency towards larger or lower ground stresses acting on the lining in regard to, at least, cohesion, stiffness of the ground, time to closure of the tunnel ring, excavation procedure, erection method for the lining, time-dependent behaviour of the ground and the lining and effect of groundwater. Thus, the depths for the three cases overlap. For tunnels driven by the New Austrian Tunnelling Method the three cases may also be valid, but this method requires a soil with a pronounced cohesion. Therefore, load reductions, as in the third case, may generally be justified. For stiffer soil and deeper tunnels the design model should pass smoothly to those for tunnels in rock, where a lasting pre-decompression may be expected, as given by the convergence-confinement method (Fenner-Pacher curves) (see work by Lombardi, Gesta, Kerisel and many others). As regards design models for tunnels in hard rock, we are much farther away from some consensus view.' But, even for tunnels in more homogeneous' soft ground with the statically simpler system of immediate support, many problems remain. We need more statistically relevant monitoring results to verify the closeness of the design models to reality. The effect of stronger soil stiffness and its cohesion does not enter the model as a rational parameter. We need a more consistent concept of structural safety especially adapted to tunnel structures. What kind of failure hypotheses (see Fig. 1) meets the in-situ situation most correctly? Are not bending moments, at least for closed tunnel linings, actually of lesser importance than the hoop force, especially when watertightness plays a minor role? What safety factors should be employed for

--

'"

lOR

--

Proceedings 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Mexico, 1969, state of the art volume (Mexico City: Sociedad Mexicana de Mecanica de Sue los, 1969),

225-90. See also Peck R. B. Hendron A. J. Jr. and Mohraz B. State of the art of soft-ground tunneling. In Proceedings North

**American rapid excavation and tunneling conference, Chicago,
**

1972 Lane K. S. and Garfield L. A. eds (New York: AIME, 1972), 259-86. 14. Muir Wood A. M. The circular tunnel in elastic ground. Geatecbnique, 25, no. 1 1975, 115-27. 15. Curtis D. J. Correspondence on reference 14. Geotecbnique, 26,1976,231-7. 16. Einstein H. H. and Schwartz C. W. Simplified analysis for tunnel supports.]. geotech. Engng Diu. ASCE, April 1979, 499-517. 17. Ahrens H. Lindner E. and Lux K. H. Zur Dimensionierung von Tunnelausbauten nach den 'Empfehlungen zur Berechnung von Tunneln im Lockergestein (1980)'. (See reference 4) Bautecbnik, 1982, in press. 18. Ebaid G. S. and Hammad M. E. Aspects of circular tunnel design. Tunnels Tunnell., 10, July 1978, 59-63.

91