...

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

...

© All Rights Reserved

- Geotechnics & Foundation Presentation 2011
- Planning and Site Investigation in Tunnelling
- ejsr_27_2_08
- UGS 2003
- GIT Concepts
- Rps Tahun 3 Praktikum II
- Aker Wirth - Tunnel Boring Machines, Raise Boring and Full-Face Shaft Boring Machines - Mining Technology.pdf
- Unit 8 Tunnels
- -- cna_report.pdf
- CANDA Science January 23-27, 2017
- Galvan
- GT INVESTIGAITON REPORT FOR METAL POWER PLANT.pdf
- Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications-1995-Bell-3-29 (1)
- ESR-1685
- Ejemplo Del Problema
- QP10 Q 6410 PipelineTunnel TypicalCrossSections Rev0
- 61 the Struc Eng Vol74 No21
- 2 Prof. Masaki Kitazume Deep Mixing Method the Japanese Experience and Recent Advancement
- FYP Project Poster 64 65 81 101
- Paper Osorio

You are on page 1of 21

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

stage into account

Cungang Lin a,⇑, Shiming Wu b, Tangdai Xia c

a

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China

b

Hangzhou Qing-chun Road Cross-river Tunnel Company Limited, Hangzhou 310002, China

c

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fluctuations of river stage are expected to induce changes in loads acting on the tunnel linings and cause

Received 4 May 2013 readjustments of member forces in the segmental linings subsequently. Therefore, the evaluation of

Received in revised form 9 August 2014 impacts of time-dependent river levels on the loads acting on the tunnel linings is of great importance

Accepted 20 September 2014

in design of shield tunnel linings situated beneath the rivers. However, the loads acting the tunnel linings

are generally considered as constant in most design methods available, taking no account of the inﬂu-

ences of constantly changing river stage. In this study, the inﬂuences of river stage on design of shield

Keywords:

tunnel linings are evaluated with respect to two common ground conditions: (a) impermeable overbur-

Design of shield tunnel lining

River stage

den strata of low permeability and (b) permeable overburden strata of high permeability. Two earth pres-

Earth pressure sure calculation models are correspondingly established. In addition, ﬁeld observations in the Hangzhou

Reinforcement strain Qiantang River Tunnel are described in detail to present the responses of tunnel linings to ﬂuctuations in

Field measurement river stage and validate the established design model for the former case.

Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction design. However, the impacts of changing river stage are seldom

counted in present practice.

The shield-driven tunnelling method is widely adopted for con- Prediction of earth pressures acting on the tunnel lining is one

struction of under-river tunnels in soft ground all across the world. issue of great importance in design of a tunnel (Kim and

Behaviors of the tunnels beneath the rivers, unlike those beneath Eisenstein, 2006). In Japan, overburden earth pressure or reduced

the ground surface, are expected to be affected by ﬂuctuations of earth pressure calculated by Terzaghi’s formula has generally been

river levels. Nevertheless, there are few studies focusing on the adopted as vertical earth pressure acting on the tunnel lining for

effect of time-dependent river stage on design of the shield tunnel the segment design on the basis of previous ﬁeld measurements

linings. (ITA WG, 2000; JSCE, 1996; Mashimo and Ishimura, 2003).

The following loads should always be considered in the design Murayama (1968) studied the vertical earth pressure in sandy lay-

of the linings: (1) ground pressure, (2) water pressure, (3) dead ers by trapdoor tests. Mashimo and Ishimura (2003) evaluated the

load, (4) surcharge and (5) subgrade reaction (British Tunnelling loads on shield tunnel linings in gravel by ﬁeld measurements at

Society, 2004; ITA WG, 2000; Koyama, 2003; Mashimo and two shield tunnels. Zhu et al. (2008) simulated relaxation effect

Ishimura, 2003). Generally speaking, all of these loads are main- of vertical earth pressure during shield tunnelling. They observed

tained stable for tunnels beneath the ground surface that have that the soil arching mainly occurred within 1–2 times the tunnel

been in service for a long period of time. So it is rational to take diameter above the crown and the vertical earth pressure acting on

these loads as constant in most design methods available the tunnel lining was signiﬁcantly decreased due to soil arching.

(Duddeck, 1981, 1989). But for tunnels beneath the rivers, imposed This problem has attracted considerable interest in the last dec-

loads constantly change as a result of ﬂuctuations in river stage. ades. However, changes in earth pressures acting on the tunnel lin-

For cases like this, the time-dependent loads induced by changes ings induced by ﬂuctuations of river levels have rarely been paid

in river stage should be taken into consideration in tunnel lining attention to. Moreover, there is a lack of calculation model for

loads acting on the tunnel linings taking time-dependent river

stage into account.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 150 8868 8010; fax: +86 0571 87169527. This paper evaluates the inﬂuences of river stage on design

E-mail address: cunganglin@163.com (C. Lin). of shield tunnel linings with respect to two common ground

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.09.011

0886-7798/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

108 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

conditions: (a) impermeable overburden strata with low perme- p0 ¼ r w Hw ðtÞ ð1Þ

ability and (b) permeable overburden strata with high permeabil-

where p0 is the surcharge imposed by river water; rw is the unit

ity. Two corresponding earth pressure calculation models are

weight of water; Hw(t) is the river stage at time t, which constantly

established. The average uniform rigidity ring method (Koyama,

changes with time.

2003), which has been widely adopted in Japan for shield tunnel

The strata beneath the river are assumed to be completely sat-

lining design, is improved in this study taking stress relief prior

urated with groundwater table at the surface of the river bed. Ver-

to installation of the tunnel lining and time-dependent loads

tical water pressure acting on the crown of the tunnel lining is

induced by changing river stage into account.

ﬁgured out using Eq. (2).

In order to assess the impacts of ﬂuctuations in river levels on

shield tunnels beneath the river, instrumentation was set up dur- pw1 ¼ r w C ð2Þ

ing construction of the Hangzhou Qiantang River Tunnel to mea-

where pw1 is the vertical water pressure at the crown of tunnel lin-

sure river stage, earth pressures acting on the tunnel linings,

ing; C is the depth of overburden.

strains of the reinforcing steel bars and convergence of the tunnel.

Vertical earth pressure acting on the tunnel crown is presented

The ﬁeld observations are described in detail to present behaviors

in Eq. (3).

of the tunnel linings in responses to ﬂuctuations in river stage and

X

validate the established design model for the former case. pe1 ¼ ð1 aÞ p0 þ r 0i Hi ð3Þ

This study aims to provide an initial insight into behaviors of

the shield tunnels subject to changing river stage and improve where pe1 is the vertical earth pressure at the crown of tunnel lin-

the average uniform rigidity ring method for design of shield tun- ing; a is the coefﬁcient of stress reduction taking stress relief prior

nel lining taking ﬂuctuations of river levels into account. to installation of the tunnel lining into account; Hi is the thickness

of Stratum No. i, which is located above the tunnel crown, note that

P

2. Design model for shield tunnel beneath river Hi ¼ C; r0 i is the submerged unit weight of soil of Stratum No. i.

The horizontal earth pressure and water pressure are simpliﬁed

According to differences in permeability of the tunnel overbur- to be uniformly varying loads that increase with depth acting on

den strata, the design models can be classiﬁed into two broad cat- the centroid of the tunnel lining from the crown to the bottom,

egories: (a) impermeable overburden strata with low permeability as shown in Fig. 1. They are calculated with Eqs. (4)–(7),

and (b) permeable overburden strata with high permeability, respectively.

which are referred to as Design model 1 and Design model 2, X

h

respectively, hereinafter. qe1 ¼ k p0 þ r 0i Hi þ r0j ð4Þ

2

2.1. Design model 1

h

qw1 ¼ r w C þ ð5Þ

2.1.1. Computation of imposed loads 2

Fig. 1 depicts the calculation model of loads acting on the tunnel X X

lining for Design model 1, in which the overburden strata are qe2 ¼ k p0 þ r 0i Hi þ r 0j Hj ð6Þ

assumed to be impermeable. It is suited for shield tunnels beneath

the rivers with overburden strata of low permeability, such as clay

h

and silty clay. qw2 ¼ r w C þ D ð7Þ

2

For the overburden strata are very low in permeability, river

water is anticipated to apply a surcharge that is equal to its own where qe1 and qe2 are the horizontal earth pressure at the crown

weight to the strata below the river bed level. The river water and the bottom of tunnel lining, respectively; qw1 and qw2 are the

induced surcharge p0 is a function of river stage as horizontal water pressure at the crown and the bottom of tunnel

Fig. 1. Calculation model of loads acting on tunnel lining for Design model 1.

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 109

Notations: 1. M, N, Q are bending moment, axial force and shear force in the tunnel segment, respectively. 2. g is the effective ratio of bending rigidity of the circular ring. 3. E is modulus of elasticity of tunnel segment. 4. I is moment

lining, respectively; k is the coefﬁcient of lateral earth pressure; D is

When p4 6 h 6 p2 ; Q ¼ ð sin h cos h þ 0:7071 cos2 h sin hÞkdRc

the outer diameter of tunnel lining;

h is the thickness of tunnel lining; Hj, is the thickness of Stratum

No. j, which is located between the crown and the bottom of tunnel

P

lining, note that Hj ¼ D 2h; r0 j is the submerged unit weight of

soil of Stratum No. j.

ðsin h þ 8 sin h cos h 4 sin h cos2 hÞ

As shown in Fig. 1, h is the angle measured with respect to ver-

When 0 6 h 6 p4 ; Q ¼ 0:3536 sin hkdRc

tical axis of the tunnel lining in a counter-clockwise direction. The

horizontal ground reaction is assumed to be triangularly distrib-

uted over a range of h = 45–135° and h = 225–315° (see Fig. 1). It

ðqe2 þ qw2 qe1 qw1 ÞRc

Q ¼ ðqe1 þ qw1 ÞRc sin h cos h

Q ¼ ðpe1 þ pw1 ÞRc sin h cos h

qr ¼ kd ð8Þ

When p2 6 h 6 p;

Shear force

Q ¼ 16

1

The dead load is the vertical load acting along the centroid of

the tunnel lining. It is calculated in accordance with Eq. (9).

ðqe2 þ qw2 qe1 qw1 ÞRc

W

g1 ¼ ð9Þ

N ¼ ð0:7071 cos h þ cos2 h þ 0:7071 sin h cos hÞkdRc

2pRc

When p2 6 h 6 34p ; N ¼ ðcos2 h þ 0:7071 cos3 hÞkdRc

where g1 is the dead load of the tunnel lining imposed by its self-

When 0 6 h 6 p2 ; N ¼ ðh sin h 16 cos hÞg 1 Rc

2

When 34p 6 h 6 p; N ¼ 0:3535 cos hkdRc

When 0 6 h 6 p4 ; N ¼ 0:3536 cos hkdRc

½2ðpe1 þpw1 Þðqe1 þqw1 Þðqe2 þqw2 Þþpg 1 R4c

lining.

ðcos h þ 8 cos2 h 4 cos3 hÞ

The vertical ground reaction can be obtained from Eqs. (10) and

2

24ðgEIþ0:0454kRc Þ

4

N ¼ ðqe1 þ qw1 ÞRc cos2 h

N ¼ ðpe1 þ pw1 ÞRc sin h

2

When p4 6 h 6 p2 ;

When p 6 h 6 p;

pg1 ¼ pg 1 ð11Þ

Axial force

2

N ¼ 16

1

d¼

external loads acting on the tunnel lining; pg1 is the vertical ground

reaction in balance with the self-weight of the tunnel lining.

qw1 ÞR2c

Five of the loads mentioned above, pe1, qe1, qe2, qr and pr, are

When p4 6 h 6 p2 ; M ¼ ð0:3487 þ 0:5 sin2 h þ 0:2357 cos3 hÞkdR2c

ðqe2 þ qw2 qe1

Hence, these ﬁve loads are expected to change with river stage.

of inertia of area of tunnel segment. 5. EI is ﬂexural rigidity of tunnel segment.

When 34p 6 h 6 p; M ¼ ð0:2346 þ 0:3535 cos hÞkdR2c

When 0 6 h 6 p4 ; M ¼ ð0:2346 0:3536 cos hÞkdR2c

When 0 6 h 6 p2 ; M ¼ ð38 p h sin h 56 cos hÞg 1 R2c

The uniform rigidity ring method, which was ﬁrst put forward

i

3 cos h 12 cos h þ 4 cos hÞ

3

M ¼ 14 ð1 2 cos2 hÞðqe1 þ qw1 ÞR2c

M ¼ 14 ð1 2 sin hÞðpe1 þ pw1 ÞR2c

Computational formulas for member forces of tunnel lining.

2

ally referred to as the average uniform rigidity method, is also

widely adopted in Japan. The computational formulas proposed

Bending moment

When p 6 h 6 p;

2

adopted for computation of member forces of the tunnel lining in

48 ð6

h 2

1

M¼

tunnel inner surface is subject to tension; the axial force is taken as

positive when the cross-section of the lining is subject to compres-

(qe2 + qw2 qe1 qw1)

make the section rotate in a clockwise direction. As mentioned

above, some of the loads acting on the tunnel lining are time-

(pe1 + pw1)

(qe1 + qw1)

qr = kd

Loads

Table 1

g1

110 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

Fig. 2. Calculation model of loads acting on tunnel lining for Design model 2.

2.2. Design model 2 As can be seen from Eqs. (12), (15) and (17), water pressure act-

ing on the tunnel lining is solely determined by the river stage for a

2.2.1. Computation of imposed loads ﬁxed value of C, D and h. It is anticipated to change with ﬂuctua-

Fig. 2 presents the calculation model of loads acting on the tun- tions in river stage.

nel lining for Design model 2. It is applicable to shield tunnels

beneath the rivers with overburden strata of high permeability, 2.2.2. Computation of member forces

such as sand and gravel. For high permeability of the overburden, Member forces of the tunnel lining for Design model 2 are also

it is assumed that there exists a complete hydraulic connection calculated with the computational formulas listed in Table 1.

between the river water and the groundwater. That is to say, river

water is supposed to generate pore water pressure that is identical

in magnitude to that generated by groundwater of the same height 3. Theoretical calculation

in the underlying aquifers. In this sense, the groundwater table can

assumed to be located at the surface of the river water for compu- The tidal bore at the estuary of the Qiantang River in China is

tation of water pressure acting on the tunnel lining. one of the most spectacular bores in the world. As a result of the

The loads acting on the tunnel lining, as shown in Fig. 2, are cal- tidal bore, water level of the Qiantang River is under constant ﬂuc-

culated with Eqs. (12)–(20). In order to distinguish from previous tuation. Thus, behaviors of the shield tunnels beneath the Qiantang

calculations, loads of the same types to those mentioned in Design River are expected to be largely affected by ﬂuctuations of the river

model 1 are overlined. The other variables have the same deﬁni- stage. One issue of great concern in design of a shield tunnel

tions as before. beneath the Qiantang River is the evaluation of impacts of ﬂuctua-

tions in river stage on the structural soundness of the tunnel over

w1 ¼ r w ½Hw ðtÞ þ C

p ð12Þ its operational life. The Hangzhou Qiangtang River Tunnel, which

X was put into service in December of 2010, is the ﬁrst shield tunnel

e1 ¼ ð1 aÞ

p r 0i Hi ð13Þ beneath the Qiantang River. Hence, a case study is conducted with

regard to this tunnel to explore behaviors of the tunnel lining in

X responses to ﬂuctuations in river stage and examine the above-

h

e1 ¼ k

q r 0i Hi þ r0j ð14Þ established design models.

2

h 3.1. Project overview and geology

w1 ¼ rw Hw ðtÞ þ C þ

q ð15Þ

2

The Hangzhou Qiantang River Tunnel was constructed to carry

X X

the trafﬁc across the Qiantang River in Hangzhou. It consisted of

e2

q ¼k r 0i Hi þ r 0j Hj ð16Þ

two parallel tubes designed for one-way trafﬁc in opposite direc-

tions. It was bored by two slurry shields with an outer diameter

h of 11.65 m and a length of 11.4 m. The shield tunnel was con-

w2 ¼ rw Hw ðtÞ þ C þ D

q ð17Þ

2 structed with a precast reinforced concrete lining, which was com-

posed of nine segmental concrete pieces bolted together by steel

r ¼ kd

q ð18Þ bolts in both the circumferential and longitudinal directions.

The subsurface conditions along the tunnel alignment can be

r ¼ p

p w1 þ p

e1 ð19Þ generally described as a typical Qiantang River alluvial deposit.

Table 2 shows some of the basic soil properties at the site obtained

g1 ¼ pg 1

p ð20Þ from laboratory and in-situ soil tests. The geotechnical strata from

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 111

Table 2

Summary of soil properties at the site.

Stratum number Stratum name r (kN m3) K0 c (kPa) u (°) Kv (cm s1) k (104 kN m3) N

1 Made ground 19.0

2–1 Sandy silt 19.5 0.214 35.9 34.8 1.49 104 2.0 10

2–2 Silt with mucky soil 19.2 0.242 37.0 35.5 1.78 104 1.4 7

3–1 Silty sand with silt 19.5 0.221 36.5 38.7 1.58 104 2.8 14

3–2 Sandy silt 19.8 0.196 42.0 21.7 2.24 104 1.8 9

3–3 Silty sand with silt 19.8 0.212 27.7 30.1 3.11 104 3.0 15

3–4 Clayey silt 19.5 0.177 21.6 18.0 2.46 104 1.0 5

4 Mucky silty clay 18.5 0.557 28.0 12.9 1.45 107 0.8 4

5–1 Silty clay 19.8 0.392 34.9 26.0 1.24 107 2.0 10

5–2 Silty clay 19.0 0.515 35.5 19.0 2.16 107 2.2 11

6–1 Clay 18.8 0.460 39.0 16.9 9.55 108 0.9 4

6–2 Silty clay 19.0 0.379 41.0 20.5 1.77 107 1.6 8

7–1 Silty clay with silty sand 20.1 0.367 55.7 25.7 3.92 107 2.6 13

7–2 Silty ﬁne sand 20.5 0.206 54.7 23.8 2.74 104 4.8 24

8 Round gravel 21.8 0.492 7.50 102 8.0 28

Notations: 1. r is the natural unit weight of soil; 2. K0 is the coefﬁcient of lateral earth pressure at rest; 3. c and u are the cohesion and internal friction angle of soil,

respectively, which are obtained from consolidated undrained triaxial shear test; 4. Kv is the coefﬁcient of vertical permeability; 5. N is the blow counts of standard

penetration test.

Fig. 3. Longitudinal proﬁle of the tunnel and locations of the monitored sections.

surface level along the route of the bored tunnels comprised vary- 3.2. Computation of imposed loads and member forces

ing thickness of made ground, sandy silt, clay, ﬁne sand and round

gravel. The tunnel was mainly situated within stratum 3 to stratum Section 1 as shown in Fig. 4 is selected for analysis. The loads

8, including silty sand, clay, ﬁne sand and round gravel. acting on the tunnel ling and the generated member forces are cal-

Four typical cross-sections of the tunnel lining were instru- culated using above-proposed equations, with regard to Design

mented with total earth pressure cells and reinforcement strain model 1 and 2, respectively.

gauges to observe behaviors of the tunnel in service. Fig. 3 shows Convergence of the tunnel lining was measured with instru-

the longitudinal proﬁle of the tunnel and the approximate loca- mented sections spaced at 50 m intervals along the alignment dur-

tions of the four monitored sections, and Fig. 4 depicts their geo- ing construction of the Hangzhou Qiantang River Tunnel (Lin et al.,

logical proﬁles. 2011). An increase of the horizontal diameter of the tunnel lining

112 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

Table 3

Computational parameters.

Dimensions of segment

D 11.30 m

Rc 5.40 m

b Width of segment 2.00 m

h 0.50 m

Ground conditions

C 17.074 m

rw 10 kN m3

c Cohesion of soil in layer 5–2 35.5 kPa

u Internal friction angle of soil in stratum 5–2 19.0 °

K0 Coefﬁcient of lateral earth pressure at rest of soil instratum 5–2 0.515 –

K a ¼ tan2 ðp4 u2 Þ Coefﬁcient of lateral active earth pressure at rest of soil in stratum 5–2 0.509 –

k ¼ 12 ðK 0 þ K a Þ 0.512 –

a 0.2 –

Segmental lining

g1 12.50 kN m2

E 3.45 107 kN m2

I ¼ bh

3

0.020833333 m4

12

g 1 –

after it has been erected. In the following two months, the tunnel Computation results of imposed loads for Design model 1.

lining was generally observed to contract along its spring line. Load Result (kN m2)

The decrease of its horizontal diameter was generally within pe1 128.678 + 8.0 Hw(t)

8 mm three months after it has been erected. Hence, the horizontal pw1 170.740

ground reaction can be neglected when evaluating the long-term qe1 83.442 + 5.12 Hw(t)

loads acting on the tunnel lining in service. Therefore, the horizon- qw1 173.240

qe2 138.0860 + 5.12 Hw(t)

tal ground reaction is not taken into account in the following

qw2 281.240

computations. pr 299.418 + 8.0 Hw(t)

Table 3 gives the needed parameters for computation. The coef- pg1 39.270

ﬁcient of stress reduction, a, is inﬂuenced by many factors, such as

Note: The unit of Hw(t) is m.

the stress-deformation-time characteristics of the surrounding soil,

the amount of deformation of the surrounding soil experienced, and

800

the time at which the actual contact is made between the soil and

the lining. In many instances it is further complicated by the process

700 pr

of ﬁlling the voids. Centrifuge model tests conducted by Nomoto

et al. (1999) ﬁnd that the earth pressure acting on the tunnel is lar-

600

gely dominated by the differences of the construction processes.

Earth pressures acting on the shield segments were measured by pe1

500

Inokuma and Ishimura (1995) and Suzuki et al. (1996). Inokuma

Pressure (kPa)

400 qe2

tunnels was 80% of total cover pressure on shield driven tunnels

in sandy ground. Suzuki et al. (1996) showed that the measured qe1

300

earth pressure was about 40–60% of the total overburden earth qw2

pressure. In engineering practice a is usually determined by experi- 200 qw1

ence gained from full-scale tests. Here a is assumed to be 0.2 based pw1

on previous case studies in similar ground conditions. 100

Shield tests done by Nomoto et al. (1999) show that the value of

pg1

the coefﬁcient of lateral earth pressure (k) largely depends on the 0

tail void thickness and the ground stress around the shield can 0 10 20 30 40 50

Hw(t) (m)

be assumed in an active state when the tail void thickness is large.

The observation demonstrates that the control of the tail void is

Fig. 5. Calculated imposed loads.

crucial in deciding k. The k values for different types of soils are

suggested by RTRI (1997) and JSCE (2010) according to the N val- proposed by JSCE (1996, 2010) that: (1) the value of K0 can be

ues. For clayey soils with N in the range of 8–25, k is suggested regarded as k when the horizontal ground reaction is difﬁcult to

by RTRI (1997) and JSCE (2010) to be 0.40–0.50 and 0.45–0.55, be obtained, and (2) the value of Ka or a reduction of K0 can be used

respectively. ITA WG (2000) suggested that the k value to be used as k when the horizontal ground reaction is available. Following

in the design calculation should be between the value of the coef- these suggestions, the value of k is taken as half of the sum of K0

ﬁcient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) and the value of the and Ka, as presented in Eq. (21).

coefﬁcient of lateral active earth pressure (Ka). Zhong (2005) mea-

sured the earth pressures acting on the shield tunnel linings in dif- 1

k¼ ðK 0 þ K a Þ ð21Þ

ferent soil layers. It was generally observed that k is approximately 2

equal to K0 in clayey soils, and k is close to Ka in sandy soils. It was

where Ka is the coefﬁcient of lateral active earth pressure.

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 113

1200

1000

θ=0 degree

800 180

600 160

400

M (kN⋅m/m)

200

40

0

-200

-400 120

-600

60

-800 70

80

-1000 90

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Hw(t) (m)

Fig. 6. Calculated bending moment of tunnel lining.

1000 50

40

30

500

20

M (kN⋅m/m)

10

5

0

Hw(t)=0

-500

-1000

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

θ (degree)

Fig. 9. Calculated axial force of tunnel lining.

Fig. 7. Distribution of bending moment at different river stages (0–50 m).

4000

3800

Ka can be calculated using equation proposed by Rankine

3600

(Aysen, 2005), that is

Hw(t)=50 m

p u 3400

2

K a ¼ tan ð22Þ 3200

4 2

40 m

3000

3.2.1. Computation for Design model 1

N (kN/m)

2800 30 m

3.2.1.1. Computation results of imposed loads. Table 4 lists the com-

2600

putation results of imposed loads, which are also presented in 20 m

2400

Fig. 5.

10 m

As can be seen from Fig. 5, pw1, qw1, qw2, and pg1 are not affected 2200

5m

by changes in river stage, but pe1, qe1, qe2 and pr are expected to 2000 0m

increase linearly with a rise of river stage.

1800

1600

3.2.1.2. Computation results of member forces.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

(1) Bending moment

θ (degree)

Fig. 6 presents calculated bending moment of the tunnel lining.

As can be seen from Fig. 6, changes in river stage not only cause Fig. 10. Distribution of axial force at different river stages (0–50 m).

changes in magnitude of the bending moment, but also alter its

distribution along the circumference of the tunnel lining.

Fig. 7 shows calculated bending moment along the circumfer- Fig. 8 presents changes of bending moment with river stage at

ence of the tunnel lining at river stages in the range of 0–50 m. different cross-sections along the circumference of the tunnel lin-

As shown in Fig. 7, both the maximum positive bending moment ing. As obviously shown in Fig. 8, the bending moment at different

and the maximum negative bending moment are found to increase cross-sections is expected to increase linearly with different rates

with rising river stage. with the rise of river stage. For a given river stage, the magnitude

114 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

4000 400

90

3800 Hw(t)=50 m

120

3600 60 300

40

150

3400

180 200 30

3200 30

20

3000 100

10

θ=0 dergee

N (kN/m)

Q (kN/m)

2800

0 0

2600

16.69 m

2400 -100

Q= 41.955 kN/m

2200

-200

when θ= 90 degree

2000

1800 -300

1600

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 -400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Hw(t) (m) θ (degree)

Fig. 11. Changes of axial force with river stage at different cross-sections. Fig. 13. Distribution of shear force at different river stages (0–50 m).

400

40

30

300 60

20

200

10

100

80

Q (kN/m)

0 and 180

0

90

-100

100

-200 160

150

-300 120

θ =130 degree

-400

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Hw(t) (m)

Fig. 12. Calculated shear force of tunnel lining.

Fig. 14. Changes of shear force with river stage at different cross-sections.

and location of the anticipated maximum positive and negative

moment of the tunnel lining can be determined from Fig. 8.

Table 5

Computation results of imposed loads for Design model 2.

(2) Axial force

Load Result (kN m2)

Calculated axial force along the circumference of the tunnel lin- e1

p 128.678

ing at river stage of 0–50 m is shown in Fig. 9, as can be seen from w1

p 170.740 + 10 Hw(t)

which, the axial force increases with the rise of river stage at all e1

q 83.4418

w1

q 173.240 + 10 Hw(t)

cross-sections of the tunnel lining. e2

q 133.0860

Fig. 10 presents calculated axial force along the circumference w2

q 281.240 + 10 Hw(t)

of the tunnel lining at river stage of 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 m, r

p 299.418 + 10 Hw(t)

respectively. Fig. 11 shows changes of axial force with river stage g1

p 39.270

at different degrees (0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 degree, respec-

tively) from the tunnel crown. As shown in Figs. 10 and 11, axial

force of different cross-sections is found to increase linearly at dif-

ferent rates with river stage. When the river stage is below 0–50 m. As can be seen from these ﬁgures, shear force of the tunnel

16.69 m, the maximum axial force generally occurs at the invert lining is signiﬁcantly affected by changes in river stage. The calcu-

of the tunnel lining. As rising of the river stage, the cross-section lated shear force equals to zero at the crown (h = 0°) and the invert

where the maximum axial force appearing is gradually transferred (h = 180°). The shear force at the spring line (h = 90°) is also main-

to the spring line. tained constant, with a value of 41.955 kN per unit meter of seg-

ment. Shear force at the other sections along the circumference is

(3) Shear force found to increase linearly in the rage of h = 0–90° and decrease lin-

early in the range of h = 90–180° with rising river stage. It is noted

Figs. 12–14 present the calculated shear force at different loca- that the increase rate or decrease rate of shear force with river

tions along the circumference of the tunnel lining at a river stage of stage is different at different cross-sections.

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 115

800

pr

q w2

700 qw1

600

p w1

500

Pressure (kPa)

400

small discrepancy in value between them.

200

qe2

pe1

100

qe1

p g1

0

0 20 40 60

Hw(t) (m)

Fig. 17. Calculated axial force of tunnel lining in Design model 2.

Fig. 15. Calculated imposed loads for Design model 2.

4400 Hw(t)= 50 m

4000

40 m

3600

30 m

N (kN/m)

3200

2800 20 m

2400

10 m

2000

0m

1600

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

θ (degree)

Fig. 18. Distribution of axial force at different river stages (0–50 m) in Design

model 2.

4800

θ =0 degree 180

θ =40 degree 140

3.2.2. Computation for Design model 2 4400

40

θ =140 degree

3.2.2.1. Computation results of imposed loads. Table 5 gives the com-

4000 θ =180 degree

putation results of imposed loads for Design model 2. Fig. 15 shows

their changes with river stage. As can be seen from Fig. 15, water 3600 θ =0 degree

pressure acting on the tunnel lining is expected to increase linearly

N (kN/m)

at the same rate with river stage. Nevertheless, the earth pressures 3200

e1 and q

e1 , q

(p e2 ) acting on the tunnel lining are not affected by

2800

river stage.

2400

2000

(1) Bending moment

Fig. 16 presents calculated bending moment along the circum- 1600

ference of the tunnel lining at river stage in the range of 0–50 m.

As demonstrated in Fig. 16, the bending moment is not dependent 1200

0 10 20 30 40 50

on the river stage. Hw(t) (m)

(2) Axial force Fig. 19. Changes of axial force with river stage at different cross-sections in Design

model 2.

the crown under different river stages is presented in Figs. 17–19, (3) Shear force

as shown in which, axial force at all cross-sections is found to

increase linearly at the same rate with the rise of river stage. The The calculated shear force of the tunnel lining under river stage

maximum axial force occurs at the invert (h = 180°) of the tunnel of 0–50 m is shown in Fig. 20, as can be seen from which, changes

lining. in river stage induce no changes in shear force.

116 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

cross-sections. Each of the pressure cells and strain gauges is nom-

inated individually as labeled in Fig. 21. Convergence measure-

ment was carried out using a total station instrument to measure

the absolute displacements of the reﬂective targets mounted on

the inner surface of the tunnel lining along its spring line. For eval-

uation of inﬂuences of changes in river level on behaviors of the

tunnel, river stage above the tunnel in the entire year of 2011

was hourly measured. Table 6 lists the measurement items imple-

mented at the four instrumented sections.

The total earth pressure cells were installed at the exterior sur-

face of the tunnel segment. Pressures measured by them are a

combination of effective earth pressures and pore water pressures.

The strain gauges were welded to the main reinforcing steel bars as

sketched in Fig. 22.

Fig. 20. Calculated shear force of tunnel lining in Design model 2. 4.2. Measurement results

4. Observational veriﬁcation 4.2.1.1. Monthly changes in river stage. River stage of the Qiantang

River was automatically monitored once per hour throughout

4.1. Instrumentation set-up 2011 at location above the tunnel. Fig. 23(a) and (b) presents the

hourly monitored and daily averaged results, respectively. Peaks

For veriﬁcation of the design models established above, ﬁeld and troughs of the river stage measured within each month are

observations were carried out to measure the total earth pressures referred to as long-term peaks and long-term troughs, respectively,

acting on the tunnel linings, strains of the reinforcing steel bars as labeled in Fig. 23(a) and (b). The observed amplitudes of river

embedded within the segments and convergence of the tunnel lin- stage between neighboring long-term peaks and troughs generally

ings. The instrumentation was set up at four cross-sections along fall in the range of 0.629–3.174 m, 1.375 m on average. Fig. 24

the alignment of the tunnel as shown in Fig. 3. illustrates the time intervals between adjacent long-term peaks

The total earth pressure cells and the reinforcement strain and troughs throughout 2011. As shown in it, time intervals

gauges were installed during manufacture of the concrete seg- between adjacent long-term peaks and troughs in 2011 mostly

Fig. 21. Arrangement of total earth pressure cells and reinforcement strain gauges.

Table 6

Items of measurements.

frequency

Section 1, 2, and 3 Section 4

River stage Automatic monitoring system of Automatically recorded once per

river’s water level hour

Earth pressure Vibrating wire total earth pressure 4/ring, uniformly distributed 9/ring, uniformly distributed Automatically recorded once per

cells along the circumference along the circumference hour

Strains of reinforcing Vibrating wire strain gauges 8/ring, uniformly distributed 18/ring, uniformly distributed Automatically recorded once per

steel bars along the circumference along the circumference hour

Convergence of Total station instrument 1/ring 1/ring Manually recorded once in every

tunnel linings 15 or 30 days

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 117

12

Time intervals

10

6

Fig. 22. Location of strain gauges welded to reinforcing steel bars.

Fig. 24. Time intervals between adjacent long-term peaks and troughs of river

stage in 2011.

range from 6 to 9 days, with an average of 7.40 days. Field observa-

tions reveal that river stage of the Qiantang River ﬂuctuates period-

ically with an average period and amplitude of 14.80 days and short-term trough consumes far more time than its rise from one

1.375 m, respectively, in the entire year of 2011. short-term trough to the next short-term peak.

Fig. 26 presents time intervals that characterize daily ﬂuctua-

tions in river stage throughout 2011. As shown in it, it generally

4.2.1.2. Daily changes in river stage. Fig. 25(a) shows hourly- takes an average time of about 10.74 h for river stage descending

recorded river stage from 13:00 27th July 2011 to 12:00 25th from one short-term peak to the next trough, whereas only an

August 2011, and Fig. 25(b) presents the corresponding time inter- average of about 1.65 h for it rising from one short-term trough

vals. Peaks and troughs of river stage observed in each day are to the following peak.

referred to as short-term peaks and short-term troughs, respec- Above analysis demonstrates that river stage of the Qiantang

tively, as labeled in Fig. 25(a). The time required for the river stage River ﬂuctuates regularly and periodically within each day and

changing from one short-term peak to the next short-term peak, each month, with an average period of 12.38 h and 14.80 days,

from one short-term peak to the next short-term trough, and from respectively. This is exactly one of the distinguishing characteris-

one short-term trough to the next short-term peak is referred to as tics of time dependent river stage of the Qiantang River governed

time interval from peak to peak, from peak to trough, and from by the tidal bores.

trough to peak, respectively, as shown in Fig. 25(b). As shown in

Fig. 25, river stage ﬂuctuates periodically with an average cycle 4.2.2. Total earth pressures

time of about 12 h within each day. It is distinguished that the The Hangzhou Qiantang River tunnel was put into service on

decline of river stage from one short-term peak to the following 28th December 2010. Monitoring of the earth pressures started

8

Long-term peak

River stage (m)

4 Long-term trough

3

2010/12/20 2011/2/20 2011/4/20 2011/6/20 2011/8/20 2011/10/20 2011/12/20

(a)

9 River stage in 2011

8

River stage (m)

7

Long-term peak

6

4

Long-term trough

3

2010/12/20 2011/2/20 2011/4/20 2011/6/20 2011/8/20 2011/10/20 2011/12/20

(b)

Fig. 23. Field measured river stage of the Qiantang River throughout 2011: (a) hourly monitored; (b) daily averaged.

118 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

9

from 13:00 ,7/27 to 12:00,8/25

Short-term peak

8

7

5

Short-term trough

4

3

2011/7/26 2011/7/30 2011/8/3 2011/8/7 2011/8/11 2011/8/15 2011/8/19 2011/8/23 2011/8/27

(a)

20

From peak to peak

From peak to trough

16 From trough to peak

Time interval (h)

12

0

2011/7/26 2011/7/30 2011/8/3 2011/8/7 2011/8/11 2011/8/15 2011/8/19 2011/8/23 2011/8/27

(b)

Fig. 25. (a) Hourly-monitored river stage from 13:00 27th July 2011 to 12:00 25th August 2011; (b) corresponding time intervals.

28

(1) From peak to peak clude that the annual changes in measured total earth pressures

24 (2) From peak to trough are dominated by the annual changes in temperature. Note that

(3) From trough to peak annual changes in total earth pressures measured by the pressure

20 cells, which are mainly generated by temperature changes, are not

a true representation of the actual changes in total earth pressures

Time interval (h)

earth pressures caused by temperature changes should be elimi-

12 (1) nated when evaluating the total earth pressures acting on the tun-

(2) nel lining.

8

4.2.2.2. Monthly changes in total earth pressures. Fig. 28(a) and (b)

4 demonstrates daily-averaged total earth pressures measured by

(3)

TB1, TC1, TA2 and TC2 and river stage from 24th February 2011 to

0 31st December 2011, respectively. It is noted that the earth pres-

2010/12/10 2011/2/10 2011/4/10 2011/6/10 2011/8/10 2011/10/10 2011/12/10

sure ﬂuctuate periodically in each month with ﬂuctuations of river

Fig. 26. Time interval for daily ﬂuctuations of river stage. levels at the same time. To better study monthly changes of total

earth pressures, the measurements from two periods (24th Febru-

ary to 10th May 2011, and 1st August 2011 to 31st October 2011)

are shown in Figs. 29 and 30. As can be seen from Figs. 29 and 30,

from 24th February 2011, with a reading frequency of once per total earth pressures and river stage ﬂuctuate synchronously in

hour. Total earth pressures measured by TB1, TC1, TA2 and TC2 are each month with an average period of about 14.80 days. In this

analyzed as a typical representation of changes of total earth pres- sense, it can be concluded that monthly ﬂuctuations of total earth

sures acting on the tunnel lining with time. pressures acting on the tunnel lining are mainly governed by

monthly changes in river stage.

4.2.2.1. Annual changes in total earth pressures. Fig. 27(a) shows

hourly measured earth pressures by TB1, TC1, TA2 and TC2 from 4.2.2.3. Daily changes in total earth pressures. Measurements from

24th February 2011 to 14th December 2012, and Fig. 27(b) shows two periods (0:00 10th October 2011 to 23:00 21st October

daily averaged temperature monitored by a thermometer mounted 2011, and 0:00 24th October 2011 to 23:00 3rd November 2011)

on the inner surface of the tunnel lining throughout 2011 and are presented in Figs. 31 and 32, respectively, to study daily

2012. In fact, temperature changes cause changes in readings of changes in total earth pressures and their correlations with river

the total earth pressure cells. Changes in readings for each degree stage. As obviously shown in Figs. 31 and 32, a good synchronism

change in temperature depend on the intrinsic property of each is observed between changes in earth pressures and river stage.

pressure cell. As shown in Fig. 27, annual changes in total earth A statistical analysis of the time intervals for earth pressures

pressures and temperatures follow the almost same tendency changing from one short-term peak to the next short-term trough

throughout 2011 and 2012. From this point, it is possible to con- (as shown in Fig. 31) ﬁnds that it generally takes about an average

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 119

1000

TB1

TC1

800

TA2 TC1

TC2

600

TB1

400 TC2

200 TA2

/20 1/3/

20

1/6/

20

1/9/

20 /20 2/3/

20

2/6/

20

2/9/

20 /20

0/12 201 201 201 1/12 201 201 201 2/12

201 201 201

(a)

40

Average temperature

30

Temperature (°C)

20

10

-10

2/2 0 20 20 20 /20 20 20 20 /20

10/1 1/3/ 1/6/ 1/9/ 1/12 2/3/ 2/6/ 2/9/ 2/12

20 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201

(b)

Fig. 27. (a) Hourly measured total earth pressures by TB1, TC1, TA2 and TC2 from 24th February 2011 to 14th December 2012; (b) daily changes in temperature of Hangzhou

throughout 2011 and 2012.

800 TB1

TC1 TC1

700

TA2

Earth pressure (kPa)

600 TC2

500

TB1

400

TA2

300

200

TC2

(a)

10

Daily-averaged river stage

8

River stage (m)

0

2011/2/20 2011/4/20 2011/6/20 2011/8/20 2011/10/20 2011/12/20

(b)

Fig. 28. Daily-averaged (a) total earth pressures by TB1, TC1, TA2 and TC2 and (b) river stage from 24th February 2011 to 31st December 2011.

of 1.70 h for earth pressure rising from one short-term trough to the tunnel lining are predominantly governed by daily ﬂuctuations

the following short-term peak. While the decline of earth pressure of river stage.

from one short-term peak to the next short-term trough generally

consumes an average time of 10.70 h. This is exactly consistent 4.2.3. Strains of the reinforcing steel bars

with river stage changes in each day. Judging from this, it can be Measurement of reinforcement strains started from 24th Febru-

concluded that daily changes of total earth pressures acting on ary 2011 with a reading frequency of once per hour. Despite

120 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

20 35

TC1

650

450 Earth pressure measured by T B1 18 30

Earth pressure measured by T C1 600

Earth pressure by TB1

16 25

Earth pressure measured by T A2 Earth pressure by TC1

400

Earth pressure measured by T C2 14 550 Earth pressure by TA2 20

River stage Earth pressure by TC2

Earth pressure (kPa)

12 500 15

350

River stage (m)

River stage

10 450 River stage 10

300 8

400 5

6

TB1

0

250 350

4

-5

300

2 TA2

200 -10

250 TC2

0

2011/2/20 2011/3/6 2011/3/20 2011/4/3 2011/4/17 2011/5/1 2011/5/15 -15

2011/10/23 2011/10/25 2011/10/27 2011/10/29 2011/10/31 2011/11/2 2011/11/4

Fig. 29. Daily-averaged total earth pressures and river stage from 24th February

Fig. 32. Hourly measured total earth pressures and river stage from 0:00 24th

2011 to 10th May 2011.

October 2011 to 23:00 3rd November 2011.

20 20

50 YWA1

800

18

15

25

Earth pressure by TB1 16

700 YNA1 10

Earth pressure by TC1 14

0

Earth pressure by TA2

Earth pressure (kPa)

600 12 -25

River stage (m)

Strain (με)

River stage

River stage 10 0

-50

500

8 -5

-75

400 6

-100 -10

4 Strains measured by YWA1

300

-125 Strains measured by YNA1 -15

2

River stage

200 0 -150 -20

/25 /8/8 /22 /9/5 /19 0/3 /17 /31 /14 /14 /14 /14 2/1/

14

2/4/

14

2/7/

14 /14

201

1/7 201

1

201

1/8 201

1

201

1/9

201

1/1 1/10 1/10 201

1/1

201

1/4

201

1/7 1/10 201 201 201 2/10

201 201 201 201

Fig. 30. Daily-averaged total earth pressures and river stage from 1st August 2011 Fig. 33. Hourly monitored strains by YWA1 and YNA1 and river stage.

to 31st October 2011.

700 35 50 25

TC1

650 30

Earth pressure by TB1 YWB1

20

600 Earth pressure by TC1 25 25

YNB1

Earth pressure by TA2

550 20 15

Earth pressure (kPa)

River stage (m)

500 15

River stage 0

River stage (m)

10

Strain (με)

450 10

TB1

400 5 5

-25

Short-term trough of earth pressure River stage

350 0 River stage

0

300 TA2 -5

-50

Strains measured by YWB1

250 TC2 -10 -5

Strains measured by YNB1

200 -15 River stage

1/10

/9 /11 /13 /15 /17 /19 /21 /23 -75 -10

201 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10

201 201 201 201 201 201 201 14 14 14 /14 14 14 14 /14

1/1/ 1/4/ 1/7/ 1/10 2/1/ 2/4/ 2/7/ 2/10

201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201

Fig. 31. Hourly measured total earth pressures and river stage from 0:00 10th

October 2011 to 23:00 21st October 2011. Fig. 34. Hourly monitored strains by YWB1 and YNB1 and river stage.

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 121

40 25 7.5

YNB2 5.0

20

20 2.5

15 0.0

Convergence (mm)

0

YWB2 -2.5

10

Strain (με)

-5.0

-20

-7.5

5

-10.0

-40 River stage Section 1

0 -12.5 Section 2

-15.0 Section 3

-60 Strains measured by YWB2

-5 Section 4

Strains measured by YNB2 -17.5

/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1

River stage 0/12 2011/3 2011/6 2011/9 011/12 2012/3 2012/6 2012/9 012/12

201 2 2

-80 -10

/1/1

4

/4/1

4

/7/1

4 /14 2/1/

14

2/4/

14

2/7/

14 /14

201

1

201

1

201

1 1/10 201 201 201 2/10 Fig. 37. Convergence of tunnel lining from 24th December 2010 to 1st December

201 201

2012.

Fig. 35. Hourly monitored strains by YWB2 and YNB2 and river stage.

trends. That is to say, reinforcement strains tend to increase as

river stage declines, and they tend to decrease as river stage rises.

20 25

River stage 4.2.4. Convergence of the tunnel linings

YWA1 Convergence of the tunnel lining along its spring line was mon-

10 20

YNA1 itored at the four instrumented cross-sections from 24th December

YNB1

2010, with a reading frequency of once in every 15 or 30 days. The

0

YWB1 15

convergence is taken as positive when horizontal diameter of the

tunnel lining increases. The measurement results from 24th

River stage (m)

YNB2 December 2010 to 1st December 2012 are presented in Fig. 37,

Strain (με)

-10

10 as can be seen from which, the tunnel lining is generally observed

to contract along its spring line. The horizontal ground reaction is

-20 neglected in previous theoretical calculations based on tunnel con-

5

vergence measurements during construction. Long-term observa-

River stage

-30

tions of the tunnel in service manifest that it is rational to

YWA1 YNA1 0

neglect the horizontal ground reaction in computation of imposed

YWB1 YNB1 loads and member forces.

-40 YWB2

YWB2 YNB2

-5 4.3. Veriﬁcation of established design model

2011/10/7 2011/10/13 2011/10/19 2011/10/25 2011/10/31 2011/11/6

Fig. 36. Hourly monitored reinforcement strains and river stage from 10th October The ﬁeld observations at Section 1 are used to examine the

2011 to 3rd November 2011. above-established design models. As shown in Table 2, permeabil-

ity of the overburden strata is very low, so it is deemed that Design

changes in external loads applied to the tunnel lining, temperature model 1 is suited for this case study.

changes induce signiﬁcant strains in the reinforcing steel bars.

Similarly, the temperature effect should be eliminated for evalua- 4.3.1. Veriﬁcation of calculation model of imposed loads

tion of strains in the steel bars induced by river stage changes. Pressure measured by TB1, which will be referred to as pc here-

Figs. 33–35 show reinforcement strains measured by some of the inafter, is the sum of pe1 and pw1. That is

strain gauges welded to the reinforcement steel bars in the tunnel pc ¼ pw1 þ pe1 ð23Þ

segments located at Section 1 and 2 from 24th February 2011 to

A combination of Eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (23) yields

14th December 2012. As shown in these three ﬁgures, strains of X

the steel bars imbedded in the tunnel segments typically repeat pc ¼ ð1 aÞr w Hw ðtÞ þ ð1 aÞ r 0i Hi þ rw C ð24Þ

annual cyclic changes in accordance with changes in annual aver- In practice, a is assumed as a constant in the design stage. So the

age temperature. This is consistent with the observations reported second and the third terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (24) for

by Tuchiya et al. (2009) at the Seikan Tunnel in Japan. one certain tunnel section located beneath the river are constants.

A close correspondence is observed between changes in rein- Therefore, it is expected to observe a linear correlation between pc

forcement strains and river stage during the same period. But it and p0 if the relationship described by Eq. (24) exists.

is noted that the strains descend with the rise of river stage. The Pressure measured by TC1, which will be referred to as ps here-

reinforcement strains ﬂuctuate periodically with an average cycle inafter, is the total earth pressure acting on the spring line of the

time of about 14.80 days in each month. This is highly consistent tunnel lining. It can be calculated by Eq. (25).

with monthly ﬂuctuations of river stage.

1

Hourly measurements from 10th October 2011 to 3rd Novem- ps ¼ ½ðq þ qw1 Þ þ ðqe2 þ qw2 Þ ð25Þ

2 e1

ber 2011 are presented in Fig. 36 as a typical example of daily

A combination of Eqs. (1), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (25) gives

changes of reinforcement strains. As can be seen from it, reinforce-

X 1 X 0 1 1

ment strains measured by different strain gauges all ﬂuctuate syn- ps ¼ kr w Hw ðtÞ þ k r 0i Hi þ k rj Hj þ kr 0j h þ rw C þ r w D

chronously with river stage in each day. Reinforcement strains and 2 4 2

river stage ﬂuctuate synchronously, but with opposite changing ð26Þ

122 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

475 445

pc versus corresponding p0 pc versus corresponding p0

470 recorded at the same time 440 recorded at the same time

Best linear fitting line: R2=0.85971, Best linear fitting line: R2=0.79458,

465

Fitted α=0.17 435 Fitted α=0.16

460

pc (kPa)

430

pc (kPa)

455

425

450

420

445 from 2011/9/26 to 2011/9/28

440 415

from 2011/10/10 to 2011/10/12

435 410

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

p0 (kPa) p0 (kPa)

440 420

pc versus corresponding p0 pc versus corresponding p0

recorded at the same time 415 recorded at the same time

435

Best linear fitting line: Best linear fitting line: R2=0.79929,

410

R2=0.79224, Fitted α=0.24

430 Fitted α=0.18 405

pc (kPa)

pc (kPa)

425 400

395

420

390

415

385

from 2011/10/30 to 2011/11/1

from 2011/10/16 to 2011/10/18

410 380

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

p0 (kPa) p0 (kPa)

Fig. 38. pc versus p0 and presentation of the best linear ﬁtting line.

Fitted results of a and k. examination of the correlations between pc and p0, and between

ps and p0.

Time Fitted a Fitted k K0 Ka

Scatter diagrams presenting pc versus p0 recorded at the same

Value R2 Value R2

time are plotted to determine their relationships (see Fig. 38). In

3.07–3.09 0.22 0.76911 0.45 0.57964 Fig. 38, R2 stands for the adjusted R-square, which is generally

3.21–3.23 0.19 0.69684 0.47 0.55277

the best indicator of the ﬁt quality. Fig. 38 shows that the relation-

4.05–4.07 0.07 0.91076 0.47 0.83723

4.20–4.22 0.26 0.63775 0.46 0.68757 ships between pc and p0 could be satisfactorily described by linear

5.06–5.08 0.1 0.63315 0.43 0.73511 equations with R2 from 0.79224 to 0.85971, indicating a high linear

5.19–5.21 0.09 0.89625 0.48 0.55189 correlation between pc and p0. This is consistent with the relation-

6.21–6.23 0.15 0.76270 0.58 0.87173 ship established by Eq. (24). Fitting results at some other periods

7.16–7.18 0.1 0.57808 0.41 0.71069

are listed in Table 7.

7.19–7.20 0.01 0.78715 0.50 0.82060

8.02–8.04 0.02 0.63139 0.49 0.84981 Similarly, a high linear relationship is observed between ps and

9.01–9.04 0.23 0.66823 0.40 0.63794 p0 (see Fig. 39 and Table 7).

9.14–9.16 0.12 0.68586 0.47 0.85986 It should be noted that p0 is solely determined by the river stage

9.26–9.28 0.17 0.85971 0.53 0.93719

(see Eq. (1)). To conclude, a high linear correlation is generally

9.29–10.01 0.29 0.69468 0.47 0.75159

10.10–10.12 0.16 0.79458 0.54 0.68515 observed between the ﬁeld-measured total earth pressures by

10.13–10.15 0.26 0.74445 0.51 0.78481 TB1 and the river stage at Section 1. And a high linear correlation

10.16–10.18 0.18 0.79224 0.55 0.71919 also exists between the ﬁeld-measured total earth pressures by

10.27–10.29 0.36 0.64520 0.52 0.92594 TC1 and the river stage. This validates the established calculation

10.30–11.01 0.24 0.79929 0.50 0.91296

model of imposed loads in Design model 1.

11.14–11.16 0.31 0.78108 0.48 0.91397

11.25–11.28 0.29 0.76014 0.50 0.86439 In this case, the average back-calculated a and k is 0.18 and

0.49, respectively. They are very close to the values suggested in

Average 0.18 0.49 0.515 0.509

Table 3. Wood (1975) recommended a 50% reduction of the over-

burden pressures to account for support delay. The 50% stress

reduction is an arbitrary value, and various suggestions have been

In practice, k is also assumed to be a constant in the design given by others, e.g. about a 33% stress reduction as suggested by

stage. Similarly, there exists a linear relationship between ps and Panet (Kim and Eisenstein, 2006). Einstein and Schwartz (1980)

p0 if Eq. (26) is validated. Therefore, veriﬁcation of the established suggested that the stress reduction coefﬁcient could be between

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 123

700 750

ps versus corresponding p0 ps versus corresponding p0

recorded at the same time recorded at the same time

745

695 Best linear fitting line: R2=0.82060, Best linear fitting line: R2=0.75159,

Fitted λ=0.50 Fitted λ=0.47

740

690

ps (kPa)

ps (kPa)

735

685

730

680

725

675 720

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

p0 (kPa) p0 (kPa)

700 695

ps versus corresponding p0 ps versus corresponding p0

recorded at the same time recorded at the same time

695 690

Best linear fitting line: R2=0.78481, Best linear fitting line: R2=0.71919

Fitted λ=0.51 Fitted λ=0.55

690 685

ps (kPa)

680 675

675 670

670 665

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

p0 (kPa) p0 (kPa)

Fig. 39. ps versus p0 and presentation of the best linear ﬁtting line.

20

(a) Measured strain by YWA1

(b) Initial calculated results (d) River stage

15 4

(c) Calculated results with Rm=0.1

10 0

5 (a)

-4

Strain (με)

(c)

0

Hw(t) (m)

Fig. 40. Section of segment and arrangement of steel bars. -8

-5

-12

15% and 100% according to simple analytical and numerical tech-

niques and case study. The back-calculated a in this case study falls -10 (b)

the lower limit. And it is smaller than the values suggested by -15

Wood and Panet. Compared to former studies, the stress relief is -20

rather smaller, which is most probably due to the superior tunnel- -20

ling technique of slurry shield. 2011/10/24 2011/10/26 2011/10/28 2011/10/30 2011/11/1 2011/11/3 2011/11/5

Fig. 41. Field measured reinforcement strains by YWA1 and calculated results from

Ka. This also gives a strong support to the calculation model. 25th October 2011 to 3rd November 2011.

The formulas listed in Table 1 are adopted for computation of Fig. 40 depicts the arrangement of reinforcement steel bars in

member forces in this case study. Computation results for Design the segment. Where, As and A0 s stands for cross-sectional area of

model 1 reveal that M, N and Q at different cross-sections along steel bars at the inner and outer surface of segment, respectively.

the circumference are all expected to change linearly with river Strains of the steel bars are calculated following methods sug-

stage. The calculation model of member forces will be veriﬁed by gested by JSCE (2010) based on the member forces obtained from

comparison of ﬁeld observed reinforcement strains by YWA1, above equations. As only changes of reinforcement strains in

YNA1 and YWB1 and their results from theoretical calculations. response to changes of river stage are concerned, the values of

124 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

15 40 8

Field-measured strains by YWA1 versus river stage

(a) Measured strain by YNA1

at the same time from 2011/10/5-2011/11/3 35

(b) Initial calculated results (d) River stage

Best linear fitting line: R2=0.93188, slope=-2.173 4

10

30 (c) Calculated results with Rm=0.1

Initial calculated strains versus river stage

Calculated strains with Rm=0.1 versus river stage Slope=8.913

25 0

5

20

Strain (με)

15 (b) -4

0

Strain (με)

10

Hw(t) (m)

Slope= 1.297 (c) -8

-5 5

-10

-5 (a)

-16

-10

-15

-0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75

-15

Hw(t) (m) -20

-20

Fig. 42. Scatter diagram presenting measured and calculated strains by YWA1 2011/10/24 2011/10/26 2011/10/28 2011/10/30 2011/11/1 2011/11/3 2011/11/5

versus river stage from 2011/10/30–2011/10/31.

Fig. 43. Field measured reinforcement strains by YNA1 and calculated results from

25th October 2011 to 3rd November 2011.

monitored strains and river stage on 24th February 2011 are both

set as datum. 30

Fig. 41 shows the measured reinforcement strains from 25th Field-measured strains by YNA1 versus river stage

October 2011 to 3rd November 2011 by YWA1 and the correspond- 25 at the same time from 2011/10/25-2011/11/3

Best linear fitting line: R2=0.93353, slope=-3.232

ing calculated results. Fig. 42 is a corresponding scatter diagram Initial calculated strains versus river stage

20

presenting measured and calculated strains by YWA1 versus river Calculated strains with Rm=0.1 versus river stage

stage at the same time. The initial calculated results, as shown in 15

Fig. 41, are reinforcement strains computed under member forces Slope=14.277

10

Strain (με)

strains of the reinforcement steel bars are observed to decrease lin- 5

early with an increase in river stage. The initial calculated results, Slope=3.616

though, reﬂect the linear correction between changes in reinforce- 0

from the observed values. Thus, the initial calculated results fail Slope=3.232

to give a reasonable prediction of changes in reinforcement strains -10

with river stage. This is mostly probably attributed to the fact that

-15

the bending moment of the lining segment is over-estimated. -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75

Peck (1969) pointed out that the bending moments produced in Hw(t) (m)

the tunnel linings largely depend on their rigidity. For shield-dri-

ven tunnel linings used in practice, the deduced bending moments Fig. 44. Scatter diagram presenting measured and calculated strains by YNA1 versus

are signiﬁcantly weakened by the presence of joints. The develop- river stage from 2011/10/30–2011/10/31.

cantly affected by the joint stiffness and the number of segments

20 8

in each ring (Lee and Ge, 2001; Lee et al., 2001; (a) Measured strain by YWB1

Teachavorasinskun and Chub-uppakarn, 2010). The jointed ring 15 (b) Initial calculated results (d) River stage

carries smaller value of the bending moment as compared with a 4

(c) Calculated results with Rm=0.1

10

continuous ring. The reduction of the bending moment generated

in a jointed lining due to the existence of segment joints was taken 5 0

into account by introducing a coefﬁcient called bending moment

0

ratio Rm, which was deﬁned as (Lee et al., 2001) -4

(b)

Strain (με)

-5

Hw(t) (m)

(c) -8

jMaximum bending moment of the jointed tunnelj -10

Rm ¼

jMaximum bending moment of the continuous tunnelj -15

-12

ð27Þ

-20 (a)

Numerical studies show that the number and the orientation of -16

-25

joints have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the maximum bending

moment in a segmental lining (Do et al., 2013; Hefny and Chua, -30

-20

2006). Generally, the higher the joint number, the lower the max-

-35

imum bending moment. Parametric studies show that the maxi- 2011/10/24 2011/10/26 2011/10/28 2011/10/30 2011/11/1 2011/11/3 2011/11/5

mum bending moment induced in the lining becomes negligible

small when the joint number exceeds 8 (Hefny and Chua, 2006). Fig. 45. Field measured reinforcement strains by YWB1 and calculated results from

25th October 2011 to 3rd November 2011.

The maximum bending moment produced in a 9-joint tunnel lin-

ing is no more than 10% of that in a 3-joint lining.

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 125

20 200000

Field-measured strains by YWB1 versus river stage (a) Inner bars

15 at the same time from 2011/10/25-2011/11/3 175000 (b) Outer bars (b)

Best linear fitting line: R2=0.95354, slope=2.590

10 Initial calculated strains versus river stage (c) Inner surface of segment

150000

Calculated strains with Rm=0.1 versus river stage (d) Outer surface of segment

5

125000 (e) Allowable compressive

Slope=12.797

0 strength of concrete:

Stress (kN⋅m-2)

Strain (με)

-5

-10 75000

194.303 m (a)

-20

Slope=2.590 25000 (e)

-25 (d)

0 (c)

-30

-0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 -25000

Hw(t) (m) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hw (t)

Fig. 46. Scatter diagram presenting measured and calculated strains by YWB1

versus river stage from 2011/10/30–2011/10/31. Fig. 48. Calculated member stresses at h = 0° with river stage (Rm = 0.1).

2010) for computation of member forces are based on the assump- safety of the tunnel lining (with regarding to Section 1 as shown in

tion that the ﬂexural rigidity of the circular ring is uniform Fig. 4) are evaluated with respect to Design model 1 and Design

throughout the lining. In other words, the tunnel lining is simpli- model 2, respectively.

ﬁed as a continuous ring. According to the above-mentioned stud-

ies, the calculated bending moment in a jointed tunnel lining using

formulas in Table 1 will be larger than its actual value. To account

4.4.1. Design model 1

the effect of segment joints on bending moment in the tunnel lin-

Fig. 47 presents the predicted stresses of the concrete and the

ing, strains of the reinforcement steel bars are recalculated under

steel bars in the cross-section of 90 degree from the tunnel crown.

different values of Rm. As can be seen from Figs. 41 and 42, the cal-

The member stresses are expected to increase linearly with an

culated strains with Rm = 0.1 are highly consistent with the

increase in river stage. When the river stage reaches a height of

observed results.

146.256 m, the stress of the concrete of the inner surface reaches

Analysis of the reinforcement strains measured by YNA1 and

the allowable compressive strength (fc = 23,100 kN m2).

YWB1 (see Figs. 43–46) also demonstrates that the calculated

Fig. 48 presents the predicted stresses in the cross-section at the

results with Rm = 0.1 can give a reasonable estimate of the rein-

tunnel crown. Similarly, member stresses increase linearly with

forcement strains induced by changes in river stage. Hence, it

river stage. The allowable compressive strength of concrete is

can be concluded that: (1) the bending moment calculated by for-

reached under the river stage of 194.303 m. Therefore, for struc-

mulas in Table 1 is over-estimated due to ignorance of the effect of

tural safety of the tunnel lining, the limit river stage is 146.256 m.

joints, and (2) after an appropriate reduction of the bending

It should be noted that the calculated stresses are signiﬁcantly

moment, the member forces calculated using formulas in Table 1

affected by the value of Rm. Here it is assumed to be 0.1 based on

can be used for stress and strain analysis.

ﬁeld observations. In design of similar shield tunnel linings

beneath the river, the value of Rm should be cautiously determined

4.4. Structural safety evaluation

according to the joint stiffness and the number of segments in each

ring.

Based on the above-established calculation models of imposed

loads and member forces, inﬂuences of river stage on the structural

275000 250000

(a) Inner bars Allowable strength of (a) Inner bars

250000 225000

(b) Outer bars reinforcement: (b) Outer bars

(a) (b)

225000 fy= 300000 kN⋅m-2 200000 (c) Inner surface of segment

(c) Inner surface of segment

(a)

200000 (d) Outer surface of segment 175000 (d) Outer surface of segment

175000 (e) Allowable compressive (e) Allowable compressive

150000

strength of concrete: fc= 23100 kN⋅m-2

Stress (kN⋅m-2)

strength of concrete:

Stress (kN⋅m-2)

150000

fc= 23100 kN⋅m-2 125000

125000

100000

100000 (b)

75000

75000

50000 (d)

50000 146.256 m 180.155 m

(c)

25000 (c)

25000 (e)

(d)

(e)

0 0

-25000 -25000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hw (t) Hw (t)

Fig. 47. Calculated member stresses at h = 90° with river stage (Rm = 0.1). Fig. 49. Calculated member stresses at h = 90° with river stage (Design model 2).

126 C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127

(a) Inner bars forces obtained using formulas proposed by JSCE can be

225000

(b) Outer bars (b) applied for stress and strain analysis of the tunnel lining

200000 (c) Inner surface of segment with great accuracy. In this case study, the value of bending

175000 (d) Outer surface of segment (a) moment ratio Rm is assumed to be 0.1 based on ﬁeld obser-

(e) Allowable compressive vations. It should be noted that the calculated stresses of the

150000

strength of concrete: fc= 23100 kN⋅m-2 tunnel lining are signiﬁcantly affected by the value of Rm. In

Stress (kN⋅m-2)

100000 value of Rm should be determined with great caution accord-

ing to the joint stiffness and the number of segments in each

75000

ring.

50000

194.165 m (d) (7) For Section 1 in Hangzhou Qiantang River tunnel, stress of

25000 (c) the concrete of the inner surface is expected to reach the

(e) allowable compressive strength when the river stage comes

0 to a height of 146.256 m. If Design model 2 is applicable,

-25000 when the overburden strata are assumed to be completely

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

hydraulically connected to the river water, the limit river

Hw (t)

stage is 180.155 m.

Fig. 50. Calculated member stresses at h = 0° with river stage (Design model 2). (8) The theoretical design models established in this study pro-

vides an easy means to assess structural responses of shield

tunnel linings to changing river stages. The advantage of

4.4.2. Design model 2 these simple theoretical models is that they can be applied

Figs. 49 and 50 show the predicted member stresses in cross- for a ﬁrst order covering of the dominant mechanisms and

sections at the spring line and the crown, respectively. The limit for preliminary design. However, to take into account the

river stage for Design model 2 is 180.155 m. complexity of geometry, geology and construction process

in practice, numerical models are necessary for a ﬁnal

5. Conclusions design. For a deeper insight into structural design of shield

tunnel lining taking ﬂuctuations of river stage into account,

Two design models for shield tunnel linings beneath the rivers numerical analyses are to be conducted in the further study.

are established taking ﬂuctuations of river sage into account. The

former model is validated by ﬁeld observations. On the basis of

the ﬁeld-observed and calculated results, the following conclusions

Acknowledgements

can be drawn:

The authors appreciate the help from the staff of Hangzhou

(1) The loads acting on the tunnel lining and the generated

Qing-chun Road Cross-river Tunnel Company Ltd. during instru-

member forces in the tunnel lining are signiﬁcantly affected

mentation set-up and data acquisition. This study is sponsored

by river stage. When the overburden strata are very low in

by K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University.

permeability, the earth pressures acting on the tunnel lining

are expected to change linearly with river stage. In addition,

member forces of the tunnel lining also change linearly with References

river stage. When permeability of the overburden strata is

Aysen, A., 2005. Soil Mechanics: Basic Concepts and Engineering Applications.

very high, water pressure acting on the tunnel lining is antic- Taylor & Francis.

ipated to change linearly with river stage. In this case, the British Tunnelling Society, 2004. Tunnel Lining Design Guide. Thomas Telford

axial forces of the tunnel lining change linearly with river Services Limited, London.

Do, N.A., Dias, D., Oreste, P., Djeran-Maigre, I., 2013. 2D numerical investigation of

stage, leaving the bending moments and shear forces

segmental tunnel lining behavior. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 37, 115–127.

unchanged. Duddeck, H., 1981. Structural design models of tunnels in soft soil in use at present

(2) River stage of the Qiantang River ﬂuctuates regularly and in different countries. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Weak

periodically within each day and each month, with an aver- Rock. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.

Duddeck, H., 1989. Guidelines for tunnel design. Tunn. Tunn. Int. 21 (12), 42–44.

age period of 12.38 h and 14.80 days, respectively. Einstein, H.H., Schwartz, C., 1980. Discussion on simpliﬁed analysis for tunnel

(3) There is a close correspondence between ﬂuctuations in supports. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE GT7, 835–838.

total earth pressures acting the tunnel lining and river stage Hefny, A.M., Chua, H.C., 2006. An investigation into the behaviour of jointed tunnel

lining. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21 (3), 428-428.

of the Qiantang River. The monthly and daily changes in Inokuma, A., Ishimura, T., 1995. Earth pressure acting on shield driven tunnels in

total earth pressures are predominantly governed by ﬂuctu- soft ground. In: Fujita, Kusakabe (Eds.), Proc., Underground Constr. in Soft

ations in river stage. Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 221–224.

ITA, Wg, 2000. Guidelines for the design of shield tunnel lining. Tunn. Undergr.

(4) A good synchronism is observed between changes in Space Technol. 15 (3), 303–331.

observed strains of the reinforcing steel bars embedded in Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 1996. Japanese Standard for Shield

the segments and river stage of the Qiantang River. The rein- Tunnelling. third ed.

Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2010. Design of Shield Tunnel Lining.

forcement strains change linearly with river stage. Revised ed. (in Japanese).

(5) The established calculation model of loads acting on the tun- Kim, H.J., Eisenstein, Z., 2006. Prediction of tunnel lining loads using correction

nel lining for overburden strata of low permeability is vali- factors. Eng. Geol. 85 (3), 302–312.

Koyama, Y., 2003. Present status and technology of shield tunneling method in

dated by ﬁeld-observations. The average back-calculated a

Japan. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18 (2), 145–159.

and k is 0.18 and 0.49, respectively. The value of k is very Lee, K.M., Ge, X.W., 2001. The equivalence of a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining to

close to K0 and Ka. a continuous ring structure. Can. Geotech. J. 38 (3), 461–483.

(6) The bending moment in the tunnel lining calculated using Lee, K.M., Hou, X.Y., Ge, X.W., Tang, Y., 2001. An analytical solution for a jointed

shield-driven tunnel lining. Int. J. Num. Anal. Met. 25 (4), 365–390.

formulas proposed by JSCE (1996, 2010) is over-estimated Lin, C.G., Wu, S.M., Zhang, Z.M., Li, Z.L., 2011. Monitoring and analysis of

due to neglecting the effects of segment joints. After an deformations and movements of slurry shield tunnel linings. In: Proceedings

C. Lin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 45 (2015) 107–127 127

of the International Conference on Electric Technology and Civil Engineering, segment. In: Mair, R.J., Talor, R.N. (Eds.), Proc., Int. Symp. on Geotech. Aspects of

Lushan, China, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 2379–2383. Underground Constr. in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, pp.

Mashimo, M., Ishimura, T., 2003. Evaluation of the load on shield tunnel lining in 613–619.

gravel. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18 (2), 233–241. Teachavorasinskun, S., Chubuppakarn, T., 2010. Inﬂuence of segmental joints on

Murayama, S., 1968. Earth pressure on vertically yielding section in sand layer. DPRI tunnel lining. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 25 (4), 490–494.

Annuals, No. 11 (B), Kyoto University, pp. 549–565. Tuchiya, Y., Kurakawa, T., Matsunaga, T., Kudo, T., 2009. Research on the long-term

Nomoto, T., Imamura, S., Hagiwara, T., Kusakabe, O., Fujii, N., 1999. Shield tunnel behavior and evaluation of lining concrete of the Seikan Tunnel. Soils Found. 49

construction in centrifuge. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (4), 289–300. (6), 969–980.

Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proc. 7th Int. Wood, A.M.M., 1975. The circular tunnel in elastic ground. Geotechnique 25 (1),

Conf. Soil Mech. & Found. Eng., Mexico City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 225– 115–127.

290. Zhong, X.C., 2005. Research on earth pressure for shield tunnel lining. Doctoral

Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI), 1997. Design Standard for Railway dissertation, HoHai University (in Chinese).

Structures (Shield-Driven Tunnel). Maruzen, pp. 47–61 (in Japanese). Zhu, W., Zhong, X.C., Jia, R., 2008. Simulation on relaxation effect of vertical earth

Suzuki, M., Komada, T., Nakagawa, H., Hashimoto, T., Satsukawa, Y., 1996. pressure for shield tunnels by particle ﬂow code. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 30 (5),

Measurement of earth and water pressures acting on the great depth tunnel 750–754 (in Chinese).

- Geotechnics & Foundation Presentation 2011Uploaded bySeng Siong
- Planning and Site Investigation in TunnellingUploaded byJean Daly
- ejsr_27_2_08Uploaded byFlavio Pavan
- UGS 2003Uploaded bysirtiendung
- GIT ConceptsUploaded byChandan Blee
- Rps Tahun 3 Praktikum IIUploaded byMyle Monic Marcus
- Aker Wirth - Tunnel Boring Machines, Raise Boring and Full-Face Shaft Boring Machines - Mining Technology.pdfUploaded byfordcell
- Unit 8 TunnelsUploaded byPrakash Patel
- CANDA Science January 23-27, 2017Uploaded byownlinkscribd
- -- cna_report.pdfUploaded byFaruk Atalar
- GalvanUploaded byShivani Gandhi
- GT INVESTIGAITON REPORT FOR METAL POWER PLANT.pdfUploaded bymazhar955
- Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications-1995-Bell-3-29 (1)Uploaded byWildan Khoerul
- ESR-1685Uploaded byalejoromk
- Ejemplo Del ProblemaUploaded byAnonymous aZrC1EZ
- QP10 Q 6410 PipelineTunnel TypicalCrossSections Rev0Uploaded byAlexeivici
- 61 the Struc Eng Vol74 No21Uploaded bydaylight888
- 2 Prof. Masaki Kitazume Deep Mixing Method the Japanese Experience and Recent AdvancementUploaded byZaky Prawira
- FYP Project Poster 64 65 81 101Uploaded byElsie Pattrick
- Paper OsorioUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Fred3Uploaded bySameer Shashwat
- Cavity expansion analysis for interpretation of CPT data in layered soilsUploaded byMarcus Vinicius
- Shear Strength Properties of Organic Soil With Sand ColumnUploaded byCíntia Castro
- StabilityParametersRev 2018-12 - Color CodedUploaded byMed El Hadi Abidi
- Geo 1Uploaded bysuntharthi
- Permeability and seepage stability of coal-reject and clay mixUploaded byHarold Mantilla
- 4_10_Work FileUploaded byJada Washington
- OSIG 2012 Call for PapersUploaded byefodwm
- Environmental Systems Study Portfolio 3Uploaded byNH02
- Expansive Soils Pt1Uploaded byRivai

- CV Template - Outline FormatUploaded byVertex42 LLC
- FevicolUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Duhme - Herrenknecht - Theoretical Basis of Slurry Shield Excavation.pdfUploaded bygianniorlati
- Attachment 1 Concrete Rebound HammerUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- PaperUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- 2_componenet_backfill_grout.pdfUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- PAS 8810 2016 Tunnel Design Code of PracticeUploaded bySérgio Bernardes
- 978-1-4020-5104-3_50Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- GE-July-1981---Soil-mechanics-aspects-of-soft-ground-tunnelling.pdfUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Haque 2005.pdfUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Excel 2016Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Rc RepairUploaded byer_zaheer
- Gong 2014Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- HostsUploaded byVenu Gopal
- tunnelUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- 2015JMCE3Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Drawing1 Model 2Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Drawing1 ModelUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- D04Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- ASTM-Saudi - 2 IngredientsUploaded byMuhammad Hafiz
- 01 FebruaryUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- Department of PharmacyUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- LicenseUploaded byMoksadul Islam
- e8154167b1a2519cfe2f199ca14cd3f3Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- 1_Fundamentals of Remote Sensing - Session 1_finalUploaded byJuvenal Tordocillo
- (ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001411Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- (ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001290Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- (ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000075Uploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury
- LandsatLook Time Enabled ServicesUploaded byTanvirH.Chowdhury

- From High Performing Buildings to Nearly Zero Energy Buildings - Potential of an Existing Office BuildingUploaded bymarlontosta5156
- General Specification of Mainlaying Materials - 2005Uploaded bybabmech6007
- 7.5 - 15 kVAUploaded bypallav
- Apsc 201 Burj Al Arab FinalUploaded byapi-3833928
- MichaelGunningUploaded byIr_sedi
- gen_auto_fpUploaded byAmmar Baig
- GL150WH cargo 150 2011 2012.pdfUploaded byMotopowersports Empresa
- Module 10 270 QuestionsUploaded byammar_mohammad_3
- HavProUploaded bylariad
- Top Co Running Instructions CentralizerUploaded bymarik417
- Chemical Admixtures - NJIT.pdfUploaded byjuliovechimgmail
- Advanced Microwave and Millimeter Wave Technologies Devices, Circuits and SystemsUploaded bySatadal Gupta
- Outline Method Statement Submarine Export Cable InstallationUploaded byMuhammad Geovani
- ZLNDUploaded byrelojuca
- S.Vijayaravind-17-07-17Uploaded byVijay Aravind
- Hameg 1004 (1004-3) Oscilloscope Calibration, Manual, Board layoutUploaded byThiago
- (Seccionador Crompton Greaves)Outdoor Off Load Dis Connectors 12 420kvUploaded byjohnc2212
- Desarme Completo de Un Red. LUFKINUploaded byAnonymous YmXY1bc
- 32014D0738_ENUploaded byIvana Scepanovic
- Operating and ProgrammingUploaded byarmando rivera
- Pragathi Final QC pptUploaded bypradeep1987cool
- 1.2-ประมาณราคาศูนย์เด็ก-ใส่-ประตู-หน้าต่าง-อิฐแก้ว-แล้ว copyUploaded bysarafan leewan
- OshUploaded byKhenzii
- 2011120809084808Uploaded byjfhl_12
- Overall Vibration Values for Reliable Wind TurbinesUploaded bybigsteve9088
- Ac CorroguardUploaded bybhagwatpatil
- Everyday-Electronics-1989-11.pdfUploaded byAmado Zambrano
- Stady Plan Ching 2Uploaded byrer
- GREEN TECHNOLOGY ON TANNING PROCESS BY EXHAUSTED TANNING SYSTEMUploaded byGlobal Research and Development Services
- QuizUploaded byfrancessich