Structural design models for tunnels 11, Duddeck }. Erdmann ‘Universitat Braunschweig, Germany ‘synopsis the ITA working group on structural design models for ‘unnelling 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 iain differences in the assumptions with regard to the ifferent models are stated. Diagrams for the hoop forces, bending 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 citcular cross: sections are investigated. Nevertheless, the results of the investigation may also be valid for non-circular cross- sections and more refined numerical analyses. There is a ‘end towards agreement on the basic assumptions and on, the design model in regard to both shallow and deep cunnels, 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. investigation geology line and orientation ‘ground characteristics ] prim. stress, strenath , fissures, anisotropy.etc. | | probing and [ rock mechanies experience ‘excavation method i estimation structural elements mechanical __,|_[ -statical system model 31 analysis a safety concept __Bi_[~ design criteria failure hypotheses” I|_~_ prognosis. “verification” of insitu monitoring tunnel design _deformations stop ? (es ~ for the actual state only, Sgfe~ [Shunsue Sttehinacge’ — “Bate translation of reality into design model marked by] Fig 1 Design procedure for tunneling (structural design model includes sections marked with vecial bar) Youk (ya cof 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, néluding different design ‘models, have been presented.*? In many instances the strest~strain—deformation problem of a tunnelling procedure can be solved only by the application of a numerical analysis, ¢. the finite element 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) affected 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 shoterete with the shore-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, itis 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Fig. 2 Plane strain continuum model -O-% 6 =yH Oh = Ky K, = const. Fig. 3 Bedded ring model: erown without bedding!” vibration, ete,, may be the cause of this, For future monitoring results may offer the opportunity to ascertain ‘which eases (eg, type of soil and depth of tunnel) this B.ssxmption 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 2 Ove On Y= volume weight 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 ‘aucomatically. 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 ‘Joading’ ground pressure where the lining deflects inwards, If such a ‘load reduction’ were not allowed, bedding (and the equivalent of this for che continuum model) has to be neglected in those parts of the cross-section where inward deformation occurs, ie. 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. 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 forees. Hence, compatibility conditions between ground and lining were not ‘considered, ‘Schmid’ 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 thesis® a thinner lining is assumed, but the omission of che tangential components of the earth’s pressure and the tangential displacements means that the results obtained do not comply with the : a1 uo N - Fig. 4 Plane strain continoum model and characteristic distribution of radial displacement, u, hoop forces, N, and bending moments, M a4y=volume weight Fig. 5 Bedi ting mode! for shallow tunnels without tension bedding a crown’® (distribution of radial displacement, u, ground reaction pressure, o, hoop forces, N, and bending moments 4) equilibrium and compatibility conditions of an elastic continuum. in 1944 Bull” 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 i 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 2 downward rigi-body displacement. Engelbreth* in Norway had in 1987 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 thatthe circular lining deforms into an elliptical mode. Thus, angential stresses and the corresponding deformations are omitted. From this inuitive approach some parts ofthe full solution forthe 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 cunnels with Limited overburden. Hence, bedding atthe 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 ae which values of a relative maximum occur. The radial bedding modulus, K,, i still a free parameter, and the tangential stresses may be included in or omitted from the load parameters In 1966 Windels" extended the approach of Schulze and Duddeck to take into account second-order effects (geometrical nonlinearity) and an approximation for pre- deformation of the lining owing to the erection procedure, eg, of tubbing rings. Thus, buckling instability is also covered for the model shown in Fig. 3. Further investigations of geometrical and physical nonlinear effects (eg. plastic hinges) have been published by German workers (o0t refered to here) In 1967 Windels™ published an extensive and complete treatise on the circular tunnel in an elastic continuum ig, 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 stress ‘mode either with fll bonding or excluding tangential stresses. The ratio of relative stffnesses of ground and lining is taken as a free parameter. Peck!® in 1969 proposed a semi-empirical approach that, in exsence, is not very different from the model given in Fig. 3 and the solutions presented in 1964," together with the effects of compressibility stiffness and flexibility stiffness. Tangential ground stresses were not taken into consideration ‘Muir Wood" in 1975 gave a corrected version of “Morgan's? more intuitive approach, again assuming an elliptical deformation mode. The tangential ground stresses axe included, but that part of the radial deformation which is due co the tangential stresses is omitted (reference ro previous work! would have enabled the correct model (Fig. 2) to have been reached). Making allowances for some predecompression 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) ofthe inital ground stresses into consideration. The moments may be Feduced 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 Curtis! supplemented Muir Wood’s formulae’ by the inclusion of radial deformation due to tangential stress. In addition, some valuable extensions in regard to time-dependent behaviour (ereep) were given in simple expressions for the change of stiffness ratio with time, The todel proposed is that of Fig. 2. Einstein and Schwartz!® 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 Windels'* (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 atthe cxown) that yield the same solutions a those for the continuum model of Fig. 2. Tangential bedding has to be introduced, Differences either fr full bond or for tangential slip are given, The results are incorporated into the German recommendations.* To summarize progress it may be stated thatthe methods available are simple enough (even with design graphs) for practical application, that the design engineer may choose cither 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), thatthe free parameters also allow consideration of a reduced initial {ground stress (say, 50% or even 30%) for deep tunnels in stiffer ground, aking into account some decompression at 85