Accepted Manuscript

Study of the collapse mechanism of shield tunnels due to the

failure of segments in sandy ground

Gang Zheng, Tao Cui, Xuesong Cheng, Yu Diao, Tianqi Zhang,

Jibin Sun, Longbo Ge

PII: S1350-6307(16)31072-X
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.04.030
Reference: EFA 3110
To appear in: Engineering Failure Analysis
Received date: 7 November 2016
Accepted date: 25 April 2017

Please cite this article as: Gang Zheng, Tao Cui, Xuesong Cheng, Yu Diao, Tianqi Zhang,
Jibin Sun, Longbo Ge , Study of the collapse mechanism of shield tunnels due to the
failure of segments in sandy ground. The address for the corresponding author was
captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Efa(2017), doi: 10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2017.04.030

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Study of the collapse mechanism of shield tunnels due to the failure of segments in

sandy ground

Gang Zheng1,2, Tao Cui2, Xuesong Cheng1,2,*, Yu Diao1,2, Tianqi Zhang2, Jibin Sun2, Longbo Ge2
1
MOE Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

Abstract

PT
Catastrophic tunnel collapses usually start with the partial failure of tunnel linings.

RI
However, research on the mechanism of such progressive collapses is limited. Among

SC
such collapses, a considerable number of accidents have arisen from the construction of

a connecting passage, which requires removing segments at the springline. Therefore, in

NU
this study, a series of customized model tests were conducted to investigate the

mechanism underlying tunnel collapse due to this operation. The test results showed
MA

that the inrush of the sand due to the removal of a certain segment at the springline may

lead to the loss of soil resistance around the openings, resulting in a sudden increase in
D

the bending moments of the adjacent linings. In particular, an increase in the cover-
E
PT

depth-to-diameter ratio (C/D) can aggravate the development of the maximum bending

moment, although it has little influence on the affected length of the tunnel. To address
CE

the load sustained by the segments and joints during collapse that the model tests fail to

show, 3D numerical analyses based on the load-structure model were performed. Via
AC

comparison with existing failure criteria for both segments and joints, the safety of the

adjacent tunnel linings can be evaluated.

Keywords: Tunnel safety; partial failure; model tests; progressive collapse; failure

criterion

*
Xuesong Cheng. Tel.: +86 13821807355. E-mail address: cheng_xuesong@163.com

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

1. Introduction

The shield-driven tunneling method is widely used for the construction of urban

underground tunnels due to its flexibility, cost-effectiveness and minimum impact on

ground traffic and surface structures [1,2]. Because the tunnel is composed of thousands

of segments connected by relatively weak joints, there exist a large number of potential

PT
risks during both the construction and operation of the tunnel. Disasters involving large-

scale tunnel collapses induced by the partial failure of the tunnel linings can cause

RI
enormous craters. Such disasters have already occurred multiple times throughout the

SC
world [3-5] with catastrophic consequences, especially when located in densely built-up

areas.
NU
In recent years, a large number of shield tunnels have collapsed with severe
MA

consequences, such as the accidents in Shanghai [3], Nanjing [4], and Kaohsiung [5]. In

these cases, the collapse process exhibited certain typical processes of a domino effect,
D

making them similar to progressive collapse cases in structural engineering. These

E

catastrophes usually started with a partial failure of the lining but soon developed into a
PT

large-scale collapse, which was commonly recognized as a “progressive collapse”. For

instance, the accident records of the Shanghai Metro Line 4 [3] indicated that the 274-
CE

m-long collapse began from the weakest part of the lining structures, where a
AC

connecting passage was being built. Due to the failure of the freezing method applied

around the connecting passage construction area, soil and water abruptly rushed into the

tunnel via the opening, where the segment had been moved. Afterwards, the tunnel

rings adjacent to the connecting passage began to fail progressively in the form of a

domino effect until approximately 274 m of tunnel was ultimately destroyed. In the

collapse, the ground sank and the buildings also inclined severely, as shown in Fig. 1.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Pudong South Road Station Huangpu river Nanpu Bridge Station

Length of the collapsed tunnel

is approximately 274 m

PT
(a)

RI
SC
NU
MA

(b)
Depth from ground surface

32 m
Average depth of the upper part Original depth of the tunnel
33 m of the lining is 33.5 m
D

center is 33.5 m
34 m
E

35 m
Average depth of the upper part
36 m of the lining is 36.4 m
PT

37 m Average depth of the lower

part of the lining is 35.2 m
38 m

Average depth of the lower

CE

39 m
part of the lining is 38.1 m
40 m

41 m

Axe of the up line Axe of the down line

AC

42 m

(c)
Fig. 1 The Shanghai Metro Line 4 accident: (a) schematic profile of the tunnel, (b)

inclined buildings and damaged ground, and (c) cross-sections of damaged tunnel

linings

In structural engineering, research on progressive collapse has been relatively

systematic and intensive [6-10]. Design codes and guidelines related to resisting

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

progressive collapse in superstructures have been issued in many countries and regions

[7,11-14]. Countermeasures to resist the progressive collapse of superstructures have

also been proposed [15,16], including the alternative path method [17], enhanced local

resistance method and tying capacity design method.

However, most investigations of tunnel safety problems have been performed in the

PT
context of forensic investigations of tunnel failures [18-20], analyses of the stability of

tunnel excavation surfaces [21-26]), or studies on the structural damage of tunnel

RI
linings during disasters [27-29]. Studies on the progressive collapse of a tunnel

SC
beginning with the partial failure of segments appear to be scarce.

In this study, the collapse mechanisms of a shield tunnel caused by the partial failure
NU
of segments at the springline in sandy ground were investigated using model tests and
MA

numerical simulations. In the model tests, the stiffness of the segments and joints and

the relative density of sand in the model were determined by strictly following 1-g
D

scaling laws [30-35]. Based on the test results, the influence of the partial collapse on
E

the adjacent tunnel rings was analyzed. The earth pressures measured around the tunnel
PT

were then entered into 3D numerical models to calculate the load that the segments and

joints sustained. Via comparison with failure criteria, the safety of the adjacent linings
CE

was quantitatively evaluated.

AC

2. Design of the tunnel model

2.1 Scaling of constitutive behavior of sand

Altaee and Fellenius [30] and Gibson [31] proposed a scaling law for small-scale

testing under the 1-g condition in sand. They noted that the chief condition for

agreement between the model and prototype is that their initial soil states must have

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

equal proximity to the steady-state line (SSL), as shown in Fig. 2. When the stresses are

normalized to the initial mean stress, the model can be expected to behave similarly in

all aspects to the prototype. The scaling relations in terms of the geometric scaling ratio

n and stress scaling ratio N (ratios of the prototype/model) are presented in Table 1. Due

to the difference in the void ratios between the prototype and model, the densities at the

PT
homologous points in the prototype and model are slightly different. Therefore, the

prototype/model ratio for the geostatic stress at the homologous points does not equal

RI
the geometric scaling ratio n. However, the density difference between the model and

SC
prototype is small and can be ignored [31,32], making the stress-scaling ratio N equal to

the geometric scaling ratio n. The corresponding scaling relations under this condition
NU
are also listed in Table 1. The geometric scaling ratio n was set at 20 for all the models
MA

in the tests.
D

Steady State Line

E

Line of similar
PT

normalized constitutive
Δem behavior
Void ratio e
CE

Model
Δep
Prototype
Δem = Δep
AC

Model log p’ Prototype

pm’ pp’
Fig. 2. Definition of model soil properties based on an SSL (after Gibson [31])

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Table 1 Scaling relations of 1-g physical modeling in sand [30,31,33].

Prototype to Prototype to model Prototype to model ratio

Quantity to be scaled
model ratio ratio (for N = n) (for n = 20)
Linear dimension n n 20
Area n2 n2 400
Volume n3 n3 8,000
Acceleration 1 1 1
Stress N n 20
Strain 1 1 1

PT
Displacement n n 20
Force Nn2 n3 8,000
Moment Nn3 n4 160,000

RI
em = ep + em = ep - 0.0389 ×
Void ratio em = ep + λln(1/n)
λln(1/N) ln(1/20)

SC
Young’s modulus of
N n 20
segments
Flexural stiffness of
Nn4 n5 3,200,000
segments
NU
Compressional
Nn2 N3 8,000
stiffness of segments
Time n1/2 n1/2 4.47
MA

2.2 Similarity relationships of the tunnel model

D

To extrapolate the tunnel behavior in the 1-g model tests to the field conditions, the
E

scaling laws for both the segment and the joint of the tunnel should be deduced. The
PT

scaling rules for the segment can be easily determined according to the π theorem
CE

[34,35] and the dimensional analysis method, as listed in Table 1. The scaling rules for

the joint are discussed in detail herein.

AC

Based on the similarity analysis methods of the joint recommended by Ye et al. [36],

a new similarity method was proposed by considering the profile and the deformation

characteristics of the joint, as indicated in Fig. 3 [37].

As shown in Fig. 3, the bolt is a tensile member and experiences an additional

deformation Δlb when the tunnel lining is subjected to an external load. Therefore, the

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

relative rotation angle of the two adjacent segments under small strain conditions can be

expressed as follows:

0.5  lb lb

  2  arcsin( ) (1)
dx dx

The tensile force increment in the bolt, ΔFb, can be expressed as

Fb  n  Eb  Ab  lb lb (2)

PT
where Eb is the Young’s modulus of the bolt, Ab is the cross-sectional area of the bolt, lb

RI
is the length of the bolt, and n and n' are the numbers of bolts in the circumferential joint

SC
in the prototype and the model, respectively.
NU
σ0(ε0)
MA

t d x
θ
D

Tensile member
E

Fig. 3 Deformation and stress state in the joint area [37].

PT

By substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2), the following equation can be derived:
CE

Fb  lb
 (3)
n  Eb  Ab   d  x 
AC

Because the similarity ratio of the rotation angle Cθ is equal to 1, the relationship can

be obtained as follows:

 Fb  lb   Fb  lb 
 nE  A  d  x    nE  A  d  x  (4)
 b b
  p  b b   m

According to the relationships of the similarity ratios, the following equations exist:

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

 F 
CF   CE  CL
b p 2
(5)
 F  b m
s

d  x
 CL
p
(6)
d  x m

where CL is the geometric similarity ratio, CEs is the similarity ratio of the Young’s

modulus, and CF is the similarity ratio of the tensile force.

PT
Therefore, Eq. (4) can be converted to Eq. (7) as follows:

RI
 n  Eb  Ab   n  Eb  Ab 
 l     CE  CL (7)
 p  lb m
s

SC
b

Similarly, the similarity relation for the longitudinal joints can also be expressed in
NU
the form of Eq. (7). The material and dimension of the model bolts will be determined

according to Eq. (7) and will be discussed in detail in the next section.
MA

2.3 Material selection of the tunnel model

D

This model tunnel is designed to simulate the universal subway tunnel in China [38],
E

which is typically composed of C50 reinforced concrete (RC) segments and M30 steel
PT

bolts using the staggered assembly method.

CE

2.3.1 Selection of the segment model material

AC

The materials commonly used to simulate the shield tunnel segment include

polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) [36],

and aluminum alloys [39]. In this study, PMMA, polyoxymethylene (POM) and

polypropylene (PP) were selected as the candidate materials for the model segment, and

their tensile strengths and elastic moduli were derived from tensile tests, as listed in

Table 2.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Table 2 Tensile test results of the candidate materials

Tensile strength Young’s modulus

Material
(MPa) (GPa)
POM 64.20 3.48
PP 29.95 1.69
PMMA 30.67 3.22
Aluminum welding wire (type HS301) 146.47 35.60
Steel welding wire (type JL-50) 816.66 103.51
Lead wire 6.71 14.95

PT
Aluminum wire (type 1060) 44.00 31.68

RI
As listed in Table 1, the similarity constant of the Young’s modulus CEs should be set

SC
at 20. The Young’s modulus of the concrete in the prototype is 34.50 GPa, and the

Young’s modulus of PP (polypropylene) is 1.69 GPa, which results in CEs = 34.5/1.69 =

NU
20.4; thus, the error of CEs is only 2.03%. Therefore, PP was adopted as the model

material to simulate the segment.

MA

2.3.2 Selection of the bolt model material

D

The material of the bolt model must be suitable for secondary processing to ensure
E
PT

that the bolt can satisfy the scaling law and meet the requirements of the segment

assembly. Therefore, aluminum welding wire (type HS301), steel welding wire (type
CE

JL-50), lead wire and aluminum wire (type 1060) were selected as candidate materials.

The results of the tensile tests are presented in Table 2.

AC

E A 
Based on CEs = 20.4 and CL = 20, the value of  b b  can be calculated using Eq.
 lb  m

(7). Then, the optimal sizes of the circumferential joints constructed from those

materials can be determined, as listed in Table 3. Note that the size of the bolt

constructed from aluminum wire (type 1060) is relatively small and matches the size of

the segment. Additionally, secondary processing of aluminum wire is relatively

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

convenient. Therefore, this type of wire was selected for the circumferential joint in the

model test; it was also selected for the longitudinal joints using the sizes calculated from

Eq. (7). The mechanical and geometric properties of the tunnel model are provided in

Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.

PT
Table 3 Optimal sizes of the bolts constructed from four types of materials to produce

the circumferential joints

RI
 Eb  Ab  Young’s Diameter
  modulus E

SC
Length of
Material  b m
l b of bolt db
bolt lb (m)
(N/m) (GPa) (m)
Aluminum welding wire (type
NU
3.711e8 35.60 0.078 0.0016
HS301)
Steel welding wire (type JL-50) 3.711e8 103.51 0.128 0.0012
Lead wire 3.711e8 14.95 0.116 0.0030
MA

Aluminum wire (type 1060) 3.711e8 31.68 0.026 0.0010

Table 4 Mechanical properties of the model and the prototype tunnels

D

Young’s Young’s
Poisson’s ratio Poisson’s ratio
E

Type modulus of modulus of joint

of segment of joint
PT

segment (GPa) (GPa)

Prototype 34.5 0.2 206.0 0.3
Model 1.69 0.3 31.68 0.3
CE

Table 5 Geometric properties of the model and the prototype tunnels

AC

Lining Lining
Lining Ring Length Diameter
outer inner Number of
Type thickness width of bolt of bolt
diameter diameter bolts
(m) (m) (m) (m)
(m) (m)
Prototype 6.200 5.500 0.350 1.200 0.400 0.030 12/16
0.026 0.001
Model 0.310 0.275 0.0175 0.060 12/8
/0.033 /0.0016
Note: The first and second values of the bolt properties represent the circumferential

and longitudinal bolts, respectively.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

2.4 Tunnel model fabrication

Under the condition of the geometric similarity ratio CL = 20, it is challenging to

apply the same structure and assembly method used in the prototype tunnel to the model

tunnel, due to its small size. Therefore, certain adjustments of the tunnel structure were

made in the model tunnel without affecting its structural stress or deformation

PT
characteristics, as follows. (1) For more convenient installation and formation of the

entire ring, straight bolts were used in the circumferential joints, although curved bolts

RI
are often used in prototype segments, as indicated in Fig. 4 (b). However, for the

SC
longitudinal joints, curved bolts were used to avoid using the slots, as indicated in Fig. 5

(a), and pre-tightening forces (25 N, corresponding to 100 kN in the prototype) [40]
NU
were applied to the longitudinal joint bolts; (2) for more convenient installation of the
MA

bolts for the circumferential joint, access holes were placed in the outside of the

segment without changing the bolt location; and (3) for simplicity, the tunnel segment
D

grooves and gaskets at the joints were omitted in the model tunnel. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5
E

illustrate the structure and the distribution of the circumferential and longitudinal bolts
PT

in the model segmental ring, respectively, and Fig. 6 illustrates the distribution of the

hand holes and the bolt holes in the model tunnel. After manufacturing the segments
CE

and the bolts, the tunnel model with stagger-jointed rings could be assembled, as shown
AC

in Fig. 7 (b).

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

PT
RI
(a)

SC
NU
MA

(b)
Fig. 4 Segment partitioning scheme and circumferential bolt distribution (unit: mm): (a)
E D

segment partitioning scheme and (b) circumferential bolt distribution and detail of a
PT

circumferential bolt
CE
AC

(a)

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

PT
(b)
Fig. 5 Illustration of the longitudinal bolt distribution (unit: mm): (a) distribution and

RI
detail of the longitudinal joint bolt and (b) longitudinal joint bolt

Access hole

SC
The longitudinal joint bolt hole
NU
MA

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6 Photographic examples of the access holes and the bolt holes for different
E D

segment models: (a) top segment, (b) adjacent segment and (c) standard segment
PT

3. Model test introduction

CE

To study the collapse mechanism of a shield tunnel induced by partial failure in

AC

sandy soil, 4 sets of model tests with different cover depths of the tunnel were

conducted.

3.1 Strong box

A rigid steel tank with inner dimensions of 1.80 m × 1.08 m × 1.90 m (length × width

× height) was designed to conduct the model tests, as illustrated in Fig. 7 (a). Two 20

mm thick Plexiglas windows were installed at the front and back sides of the tank to

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

observe the test. Except for the windows, the internal surfaces of the steel tank were

lined with a two-layer Teflon (PTFE) film to reduce the friction between the sand and

the sidewalls of the tank [41]. A circular opening of 180 mm in diameter was drilled in

each of the front and back windows. The size of the opening was smaller than the inner

diameter (275 mm) of the tunnel. A sheet of sponge covered by a thin film was installed

PT
on each end of the tunnel to minimize the interaction of the tunnel and the Plexiglas and

to prevent the sand from leaking through the gap between them.

RI
A sand pluvial device was installed above the soil tank. During the sand dropping

SC
process, the hopper controlled by a servo device could move upward automatically to

maintain a constant height (300 mm in the test) above the sand surface.
NU
As shown in Fig. 7(a), the tunnel was located in the middle of the length of the strong
MA

box. The clear distance between the lateral boundaries (inside walls of the soil tank) and

the tunnel was 2.4 times the tunnel diameter (2.4D and D = 310 mm) to reduce the
D

boundary effect on the tunnel deformation. The thickness of the sand layer below the
E

tunnel was 2.0D.

PT

3.2 Instrumentation
CE

For the tests, the tunnel model was assembled using eighteen rings, as illustrated in
AC

Fig. 7(c). The partial failure was set in the ninth ring, as will be described in detail in

Section 3.4. The bending moments of the springline, invert and crown in the fifth to

ninth rings were monitored by strain gauges. In particular, the monitoring sections of

the eighth ring were equidistantly distributed at every 45° from the crown. For each

monitoring section, two strain gauges were installed on the inside and outside of the

segment.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Plexiglas face
Plastic membrane
Centric horizontal shaft
Handle

PT
Strain gauge wire

RI
SC
NU
(a)
Partial failure
Load cell location Strain gauge
MA
E D

Ninth ring
PT

First to eighteenth rings

CE

(b)
Fig. 7 Model test devices: (a) strong box and (b) model tunnel
AC

In addition to the bending moment, the earth pressures acting on the tunnel were also

monitored. The earth pressures were monitored by earth pressure cells (EPCs), which

had an accuracy of ±0.02% and a diameter of 25 mm. Eight EPCs were mounted on the

segment of the tenth ring, equidistantly distributed at every 45° from the crown. Other

EPCs were mounted on the crowns and springlines of the eleventh to fifteenth rings, as

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

illustrated in Fig. 7 (c). The strain and earth pressure measurements were collected by a

high-speed data acquisition system with a sampling frequency of 100 Hz.

To ensure that the EPCs could measure the correct pressures, they were tested using

hydrostatic pressure loading, and the measured data were recorded and compared with

the expected pressure values [42]. The results presented a pressure that linearly

PT
increased with the water depth. At a depth of 1.2 m below the water surface, the

hydrostatic pressure was measured to be 11.6 kPa, which was consistent with the

RI
expected value.

3.3 Soil in the model test

SC
NU
The soil used in this model test was dry fine sand. The grain size distribution graph is
MA

shown in Fig. 8. The mean grain size, D50, of the sand was 0.23 mm, and the coefficient

of nonuniformity, Cu, was 2.25. Other parameters of the sand are listed in Table 6.
D

A series of consolidation undrained (CU) triaxial tests were performed to estimate the
E

steady-state behavior of the sand [31]. Sand specimens with different initial relative
PT

densities were tested. The SSL determined from the CU tests is illustrated in Fig. 9, and

the slope of the SSL λ in the e - lnp plane is -0.0389. For the falling height of 300 mm
CE

used in this study, the void ratio of the sand is approximately 0.67, and the
AC

corresponding density is approximately 1,550 kg/m3. The critical state friction angle of

the sand measured using the direct shear test was 30.96°.

Based on the scaling relation em = ep + λln(1/n), the void ratio in the prototype is 0.55,

which lies within the range defined by the maximum and minimum void ratios (0.85

and 0.43, respectively) of the sand, indicating that the void ratios are reasonable.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Table 6 Parameters of the sand used in the model test

Specific Mean Coefficient of Maximum Minimum

Friction angle
gravity grain size non-uniformity void ratio void ratio
φ (°)
Gs D50 (mm) Cu emax emin
2.67 0.23 2.25 0.85 0.43 30.96

PT
100

80

RI
Percent passing

60

SC
40

20
NU
0
MA

1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10

Grain size (mm)
Fig. 8 Grain size distribution graph of the sand
D

0.9
E

0.8
PT

0.7
0.6
CE

Steady-State Line
Void ratio

0.5
y = -0.0389 ln(x) + 0.8490
0.4
AC

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 10 100 1000
Mean effective stress p' (kPa)
Fig. 9 SSL of the sand

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

3.4 Partial failure ring

To simulate the partial failure of the tunnel structure, the tunnel ring remains intact

during the sand raining stage and fails (thus initiating partial failure) when it receives

the control signal. Such a ring is called a partial failure ring (PFR) in this paper, and its

working mechanism is shown in Fig. 10. The segment at the springline of the ninth ring

PT
(PFR) was pulled into the tunnel to create an opening of the tunnel and initiate partial

failure, which is similar to the opening of the connecting passage in the Shanghai Line 4

RI
accident [3]. This initial failed segment (IFS) was installed on the interlock, which

SC
could be controlled by the handle. NU
MA

Handle Centric horizontal shaft Interlock

(a)
E D
PT
CE
AC

(b)
Fig. 10 Device and working mechanism of the PFR: (a) device and (b) working

mechanism

3.5 Testing procedure

The cover depths for Tests 1-4 were 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D (D = 310 mm), respectively.

The testing procedure was as follows.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

(1) From the tank base up to the level of the tunnel invert, the sand was prepared

using the pluvial deposition method, and for each 200 mm thick layer, the sand was

tamped on the surface using a steel plate to achieve a relatively dense condition.

(2) The model tunnel was placed at the pre-set position. Then, the centric horizontal

shaft was installed, and the IFS was connected to the interlock.

PT
(3) From the level of the tunnel invert to the tunnel crown, the sand was rained with a

constant falling height of 300 mm. In this stage, the monitoring devices were switched

RI
on to record the earth pressure and the strain.

SC
(4) Above the tunnel crown, the sand was continuously dropped with a constant

falling height of 300 mm to a level of 1.0D above the tunnel crown. After this layer was
NU
finished, the model was left to stand until the sensor readings reached a stable state.
MA

(5) The fourth step was repeated layer by layer until the sand surface reached the

expected height (2.0D, 3.0D or 4.0D above the tunnel crown).

D

(6) When the sensor readings reached a stable state, the handle was turned rapidly to
E

initiate the partial collapse of the tunnel. After the sensor readings reached a stable state
PT

again, the test was considered to be finished.

CE

4. Results of the model tests in the sand raining stage

AC

To easily understand the model test results and associate them with practical

engineering implications, the results discussed in the following sections are all

converted to the prototype scale based on the scaling relationships in Table 1.

4.1 Bending moment of the tunnel

Fig. 11 shows the bending moments in the eighth ring at different cover depths for

Test 1 to Test 4. When the cover depth is 1D, the maximum bending moments were

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

72.96 kN•m, 74.88 kN•m, 72.8 kN•m and 74.4 kN•m for Test 1 to Test 4, respectively.

These results were similar, which indicates that the repeatability of this series of tests

was satisfactory.

Fig. 12 shows the bending moments in the third to eighth rings in Test 4. The

difference between the bending moments in the same location of different rings was

PT
minimal, indicating that the boundary effect in the model tests was relatively slight.

120
0° CR

RI
Cover depth of 1.0D +M
θ
90° SL

SC
80

180° IN
Moment M (kN· m)

NU
40

0
MA

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Angle from
crown θ (°)
-40
E D

-80
(a)
PT

200
0° CR
Cover depth of 1.0D
+M
Cover depth of 2.0D
CE

150 θ
90° SL

100
180° IN
AC Moment M (kN· m)

50

0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Angle from
-50 crown θ (°)

-100

-150
(b)

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

250
0° CR
Cover depth of 1.0D
+M
200 Cover depth of 2.0D
Cover depth of 3.0D θ
90° SL
150

100 180° IN
Moment M (kN· m)

50

0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

PT
-50 Angle from
crown θ (°)
-100

RI
-150

SC
-200
(c)
350
NU
Cover depth of 1.0D 0° CR
300 +M
Cover depth of 2.0D
250 Cover depth of 3.0D θ
90° SL
200 Cover depth of 4.0D
MA

150
180° IN
Moment M (kN· m)

100
50
D

0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-50
E

Angle from
-100 crown θ (°)
PT

-150
-200
CE

-250
-300
(d)
AC

Fig. 11 Bending moments in the eighth ring for different tests: (a) Test 1, (b) Test 2, (c)

Test 3, and (d) Test 4.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

350
Monitoring location
CR PFR
Cover depth of 1.0D
300 Cover depth of 2.0D +M
Cover depth of 3.0D
# # # # # # # # # #
Cover depth of 4.0D 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
250
Ring number
Moment M (kN· m)

200

150

PT
100

RI
50

SC
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ring number
NU
(a)
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ring number
-50
MA

-100

-150
Moment M (kN· m)

-200
E

-250
PT

PFR
-300
Cover depth of 1.0D +M
CE

Cover depth of 2.0D R-SL

-350 Cover depth of 3.0D # # # # # # # # # #
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cover depth of 4.0D Monitoring location Ring number
-400
AC

(b)

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

300
PFR
Cover depth of 1.0D +M
250 Cover depth of 2.0D
# # # # # # # # # #
Cover depth of 3.0D 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cover depth of 4.0D IN
Monitoring location Ring number
200
Moment M (kN· m)

150

PT
100

RI
50

SC
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ring number
NU
(c)
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ring number
-50
MA

-100

-150
Moment M (kN· m)

-200
E

-250
PT

PFR
-300 Cover depth of 1.0D +M
Cover depth of 2.0D
CE

L-SL
-350 Cover depth of 3.0D # # # # # # # # # #
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cover depth of 4.0D
Monitoring location Ring number
-400
AC

(d)
Fig. 12 Bending moments in different rings for Test 4: (a) on the crown, (b) at the right

springline, (c) in the invert, and (d) at the left springline.

4.2 Earth pressure acting on the tunnel

The earth pressures recorded by the EPCs at the crown and the springline are depicted

in Fig. 13. The pressure acting on the crown is larger than that at the springline, which

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

can also be observed from Fig. 14, in which the earth pressures around the

circumference of the tenth ring are presented. The earth pressures were not exactly

symmetrical with respect to the vertical axis of the tunnel section due to the

asymmetrical arrangement of the segments. The earth pressures in the other tests were

similar to those in Test 4.

PT
320
EPC Monitoring location
Cover depth of 1.0D
280 Cover depth of 2.0D

RI
Cover depth of 3.0D
# # # # # # # # # #
Cover depth of 4.0D 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15
240
PFR Ring number

SC
200
Pressure (kPa)

160
NU
120
MA

80

40

0
D

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ring number
E

(a)
240
PT

EPC Monitoring location

Cover depth of 1.0D
Cover depth of 2.0D
200 Cover depth of 3.0D
CE

# # # # # # # # # #
Cover depth of 4.0D 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15

PFR Ring number

160
AC
Pressure (kPa)

120

80

40

0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ring number
(b)

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Fig. 13 Earth pressures acting on the tunnel crowns and at the springline for different

rings in Test 4: (a) on the tunnel crowns and (b) at the springlines.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Fig. 14 Earth pressures acting at different locations around the 10th ring in Test 4.
E D

5 Analysis of the collapse mechanism underlying the partial failure

PT

5.1 Analysis of the collapse processes

CE

In Tests 1–4, after the failure of the PFR, the adjacent rings remained intact because

the strength of the tunnel in the model tests was large, as it was not scaled based on the
AC

similarity laws. Test 4 was adopted as a typical case to discuss the general process of

the collapse, as shown in Fig. 15; the collapse processes in the other tests were similar

to that in Test 4. When the PFR failed, the collapse developed quickly within a very

short period of time (several seconds).

In the horizontal cutting plane of the model at the elevation of the center of the IFS,

the horizontal movements of the IFS were similar to those of the trapdoor test, as shown

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

in Fig. 15 (b). In the conventional trapdoor test, the trapdoor usually moves downwards

in the vertical direction, whereas the IFS served as a trapdoor that moved in the

horizontal direction. Therefore, the movements of the IFS caused a horizontal stress

arching in the soil around the initial failure area. However, when the IFS became

entirely detached from the surrounding segments, a large amount of sand began to slide

PT
into the tunnel quickly, as shown in Fig. 15 (c). The inrush of the sand lasted for more

than 44 s until a steady sand slope formed, as shown in Fig. 15 (f).

RI
SC
NU
MA

(a) (b)
E D
PT
CE

(c) (d)
AC

(e) (f)
Fig. 15 Inside view of the tunnel before and after partial collapse (the time is in the

prototype scale): (a) moment of partial collapse, (b) 0.18 s after partial collapse, (c) 0.54

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

s after partial collapse, (d) 0.89 s after partial collapse, (e) 1.34 s after partial collapse,

and (f) end of collapse.

5.2 Analysis of the longitudinal collapse transfer mechanisms underlying Test 4

5.2.1 Changes in earth pressures

PT
Fig. 16 (a) shows the changing curves of the earth pressures acting on the monitoring

rings. After the failure, the earth pressures acting on the IFS, i.e., the springline of the

RI
FPR (#5 EPC), decreased almost to zero instantaneously because of the sudden inward

SC
movement of the IFS, which is similar to the earth pressure acting on a trapdoor. The

earth pressures acting on the crown of the FPR (#1 EPC) also decreased significantly
NU
when the sand sliding evolved to this point; however, its decrease lagged behind that of
MA

the #5 EPC.

The earth pressures acting on the springline of the adjacent ring (#6 EPC) increased
D

rapidly for a short period of time due to the horizontal arching effect discussed in
E

Section 5.1. However, when the sand surrounding the IFS began to slide into the tunnel
PT

after the IFS was pulled into the tunnel, the earth pressure on the #6 EPC sharply

decreased. The springing of the stress arching then moved from the 10th ring to the 11th
CE

ring, causing the earth pressure of the #7 EPC to increase slightly. However, the stress
AC

arching became considerably weaker. Simultaneously, the earth pressures acting on the

crown of the 10th rings (#2 EPC) began to decrease as the sand at this area began to

slide. The decrease of the earth pressure of the #2 EPC was much smaller than that of

the #1 EPC. The earth pressures acting on the crown of the 11th rings (#3 EPC) changed

only minimally, indicating that it was not influenced by the sand sliding. After 2.68 s,

all earth pressures gradually approached the steady-state value.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Based on above analysis, in the horizontal cutting plane, the width of the trapdoor in

this test was B, i.e., the width of the ring, and the influenced range of the trapdoor was

approximately 2B on each side, i.e., the width of two rings. This range of influence is

consistent with the results (approximately 2–3B) derived in the conventional trapdoor

tests conducted by other researchers [43,44]. However, because the sand slid rapidly

PT
into the tunnel after the IFS was entirely pulled into the tunnel, the arching effect in this

test existed for only a short period of time, and the changes of the earth pressures were

RI
primarily affected by the sand sliding surrounding the IFS.

2.0
SC
NU
IFS EPC
#1 EPC #5 EPC #1 #2 #3 #4 CR

#2 EPC #6 EPC #5 #6 #7 #8
SP
#3 EPC #7 EPC
1.5
MA

#4 EPC #8 EPC
Increase ratio of earth pressure

# # # # # #
7 9 11 13 15 16
PFR Ring number
The moment that the sand began to slide into the tunnel
1.0
E D

0.5
PT
CE

0.0
Partial collapse time

0 1 2 3 4 5
AC

Time (s)
(a)
4d

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

3.0
Monitoring location IFS
R9-CR CR
R8-CR R8-SP
Increase ratio of bending moment 2.5 R7-CR R7-SP SP
# # # # #
R5-CR R5-SP 3 4 5 6 7 8# 9#1011
# # #
12

PFR Ring number

Partial collapse time
2.0

1.5

PT
RI
1.0

SC
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (s)
NU
(b)
4d
Fig. 16 Curves of the soil pressures acting on different rings and of the moments in

different rings in Test 4: (a) soil pressures and (b) bending moments
MA

5.2.2 Changes in the bending moments

D

The variation curves of the increase ratios of the bending moments, which are equal
E

to the ratio of the bending moments after collapse over the moments before partial
PT

failure, are illustrated in Fig. 16 (b). Because the PFR was not intact after partial failure,
CE

the upper part of this ring was similar to a cantilever beam. Before the partial failure, the

outer surface of its crown sustained compression, which transformed to tension after the
AC

partial failure. The bending moment in the crown of the PFR ultimately increased by a

factor of 1.95.

As discussed in the last section, in a short period of time after the partial failure, the

earth pressure acting on the springline of the adjacent ring increased slightly due to the

horizontal arching effect, which alleviated the convergence deformation of this ring and

caused the bending moment in the springline of the 8th ring (R8-SP) to decrease slightly,

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

as shown in Fig. 16 (b). Afterwards, the earth pressures acting on the crown and

springing of the adjacent ring decreased to different levels within approximately 0.89 s

after the partial failure. However, the decrease of the earth pressure at the crown was

much smaller than that at the springline. Therefore, the convergence deformation of the

ring became larger, and simultaneously the bending moments in this ring became larger,

PT
as shown in Fig. 16 (b), where the bending moments in the crown and the springline in

the 8th ring (R8-CR and R8-SP) both increased sharply.

RI
The peak increase ratio of the bending moments in the 8th ring was 1.72. As the

SC
distance between the ring and partial failure became larger, the increase ratio became

smaller. For the rings that are more distant than 3 ring widths, the bending moments
NU
were almost unchanged.
MA

5.3 Influence of the cover depth on the load transfer mechanism

D

As shown in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18, the changes of the earth pressures and bending
E

moments in Tests 1–3 were similar to those in Test 4. After the failure, the earth
PT

pressures acting on the #5 EPC decreased to almost zero instantaneously. The earth

pressures acting on the adjacent #6 EPC first increased due to the horizontal arching
CE

effect and then decreased significantly. The maximum increase ratios of the earth
AC

pressure of the #6 EPC in Tests 1–4 were 1.02, 1.06, 1.13 and 1.32, respectively,

indicating that the horizontal arching effect increased when the cover depth was larger.

The earth pressures of the #1 EPC and #2 EPC also decreased, but the decreases were

much smaller than those of the #5 EPC and #6 EPC.

In Tests 1–3, the bending moment in the springline of the 8th ring (the first adjacent

ring) decreased slightly first due to the horizontal arching effect and then increased

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

significantly due to the redistribution of the earth pressures caused by the sand inrush,

and the bending moment in the crown of the 8th ring also increased sharply after the

partial collapse. The changes of the bending moments in Tests 1–3 were similar to that

in Test 4.

However, as shown in Fig. 19, which plots the increase ratios of the bending

PT
moments in different locations in the 4 tests, when the initial cover depth was larger, the

peak increase ratio was larger, but the influenced extent was negligible. This finding

RI
indicates that a progressive collapse might occur more easily in a larger cover depth

SC
condition. NU
2.0
IFS EPC
#1 EPC #5 EPC #1 #2 #3 #4 CR
MA

#2 EPC #6 EPC
#5 #6 #7 #8
#3 EPC #7 EPC SP
1.5 #4 EPC #8 EPC
Increase ratio of earth pressure

# # # # # #
7 9 11 13 15 16
PFR Ring number
D

1.0
E
PT

0.5
CE

0.0
Partial collapse time
AC

0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
(a)
1d

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

2.0
IFS EPC
#1 EPC #5 EPC #1 #2 #3 #4 CR
#2 EPC #6 EPC
#5 #6 #7 #8
#3 EPC #7 EPC SP
Increase ratio of earth pressure 1.5 #4 EPC #8 EPC
# # # # # #
7 9 11 13 15 16
PFR Ring number

1.0

PT
0.5

RI
0.0

SC
Partial collapse time

0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
NU
(b)
2.0 2d
IFS EPC
#1 EPC #5 EPC #1 #2 #3 #4 CR
#2 EPC #6 EPC
MA

#5 #6 #7 #8
#3 EPC #7 EPC SP
1.5 #4 EPC #8 EPC
Increase ratio of earth pressure

# # # # # #
7 9 11 13 15 16
PFR Ring number
D

1.0
E
PT

0.5
CE

0.0
Partial collapse time
AC

0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
(c)
Fig. 17 Curves of the soil pressures acting on 3d
adjacent rings in Tests 1–3: (a) Test 1, (b)

Test 2, and (c) Test 3

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

2.25
Monitoring location IFS
CR
R9-CR
2.00 R8-CR R8-SP
SP
Increase ratio of bending moment R7-CR R7-SP # # # # #
3 4 5 6 7 8# 9#1011
# # #
12
R5-CR R5-SP
PFR Ring number
1.75
Partial collapse time

1.50

PT
1.25

RI
1.00

SC
0.75
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (s)
NU
(a)
3.0 1d
Monitoring location IFS
R9-CR CR
R8-CR R8-SP
MA

2.5 R7-CR R7-SP SP

Increase ratio of bending moment

# # # # # # # # # #
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12
R5-CR R5-SP
PFR Ring number
2.0
Partial collapse time
E D

1.5
PT

1.0
CE

0.5
AC

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (s)
(b)
2d

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

3.0
Monitoring location IFS
R9-CR CR
R8-CR R8-SP
R7-CR R7-SP SP
Increase ratio of bending moment 2.5 # # # # #
3 4 5 6 7 8# 9#1011
# # #
12
R5-CR R5-SP
PFR Ring number

2.0 Partial collapse time

1.5

PT
RI
1.0

SC
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (s)
NU
(c)
3drings in Tests 1–3: (a) Test 1, (b) Test 2,
Fig. 18 Curves of the moments of the adjacent

and (c) Test 3

MA

2.25
R9-CR R8-CR R7-CR R5-CR
D
Peak increase ratio of the bending moment

R8-SP R7-SP R5-SP

2.00
E
PT

1.75
CE

1.50

1.25
AC

1.00

0.75
1 2 3 4
Cover depth (D)
Fig. 19 Peak increase ratios of the bending moments in these 4 tests

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

6 Three-dimensional numerical simulations for tunnel lining

6.1 The adopted numerical model

In the model tests, the bending moments in only a few sections of the tunnel linings

were monitored, which cannot address the overall characteristics of the internal forces

in the segments and the joints. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the tunnel

PT
lining failed when partial collapse occurred. In addition, the joints are the most

damageable parts in the tunnel lining; it is at their locations where the tunnel collapse

RI
usually commences [45]). To obtain all the internal forces in the tunnel linings, the

SC
tunnels in the model tests were simulated by a numerical model using FLAC 3D [46].
NU
6.1.1 Numerical tunnel model
MA

A 3D numerical tunnel model consisting of 18 rings, as in Test 4, was established to

calculate the internal forces in the segmental lining using the load-structure method, part
D

of which is shown in Fig. 20 (a). The geometric and mechanical parameters of the
E

numerical tunnel were the same as those in the model tests, i.e., on the model scale.
PT

Both the circumferential and longitudinal joints were considered in the 3D model. The

tunnel segments were simulated using a linear elastic linear element based on the
CE

classical Kirchhoff plate theory [46]. This type of lining element provides two links on
AC

each node, one of which can connect the segments into a tunnel [47-49], as shown in

Fig. 20 (b). These links have six degrees of freedom, including three translational

components and three rotational components, and they are all simulated by springs. In

this study, three springs in a link were considered, as they govern the deformation of the

joint, i.e., a rotational spring, an axial spring and a radial spring, as shown in Fig. 20 (c),

and their stiffnesses were represented by Kh, KA and KR, respectively [47-49]. The

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

stiffnesses of these three springs were determined using the simplified procedures

presented by Thienert and Pulsfort [50], Zeng and He [51] and Do et al. [47-49], as

listed in Table 7.

6.1.2 Earth pressures acting on the tunnel before and after partial collapse

PT
In the numerical simulation, two typical conditions in each model test were calculated:

the condition before the partial collapse and the (most dangerous) condition after the

RI
partial collapse. The pressures acting on the tunnel under these two conditions were

SC
determined and simplified based on the model test results. Taking Test 4 as an example,

according to Fig. 16 (b), the bending moments in the adjacent rings were at their
NU
maximum values 5.58 s after the partial failure, which represents the most dangerous
MA

situation of these rings in the model test. Therefore, the pressures 5.58 s after the partial

failure were used in the numerical simulation. Fig. 21 shows the earth pressures used in
D

the numerical simulation, derived from Test 4.

E
PT
CE

L2
F
AC

B3 L1

B2 B1

(a)

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Segment in ring n Segment in ring n

Link between the segments

in adjacent rings

Segment in ring n+1 Segment in ring n+1

Link between the segments in one ring

PT
(b)

Segment A KR KA Segment B

RI
Kθ

SC
(c)
Fig. 20 Schematic diagram of the tunnel and the joint: (a) 3D numerical tunnel model,
NU
(b) links between the segments and (c) springs in a link
MA

Table 7 Parameters of the joints in the present model

Segment and ring joint Values in model Values in prototype scale

Rotational stiffness Kθ (N·m/rad) 300 4.8e7
D

Axial stiffness KA (kN/m) 875 3.5e5

Radial stiffness KR (kN/m) 1750 7.0e5
E
PT
CE
AC

Fig. 21 Earth pressures in prototype scale used in the numerical simulation of Test 4

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

6.2 Numerical results and discussion

6.2.1 Numerical results of Test 4

Similar to the results discussed in the model tests, the results derived in the numerical

simulation were all converted to the prototype scale. As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the

peak increase ratio of the bending moment in the adjacent ring (the 8th or 10th ring) was

PT
largest. Therefore, we focus on the variation characteristics of the internal forces in the

8th ring. The internal forces, including the bending moments and axial forces, in the 8th

RI
ring before and after the partial failure obtained from the 3D numerical results are

SC
presented in Fig. 22.

As shown in Fig. 22 (a), several peak bending moment points in the segmental ring
NU
were located near the crown, springlines and invert. Additionally, the values calculated
MA

in the numerical simulation are close to those derived in the model test, indicating that

both the results of the model test and the numerical simulation were relatively reliable.
D

After the partial failure of the PFR, the bending moments in the 8th ring increased,
E

especially at the crown, springlines and invert, as well as the joint positions. The axial
PT

forces in the 8th ring also changed, as shown in Fig. 22 (b). In the circumferential

direction, the tunnel lining sustained both bending and compression loads. The
CE

combinations of internal forces in the 8th ring at the key positions (including the crown,
AC

springlines, invert and certain joints) before and after the partial collapse are listed in

Table 8 and will be discussed below.

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

PT
RI
SC
NU
(a)
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

(b)
Fig. 22 Internal forces of the 8th ring before the partial failure and at 5.58 s after the

partial failure in numerical model 4: (a) bending moments and (b) axial forces

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Table 8 Combinations of internal forces in the 8th ring at key positions in numerical

model 4

Right Left Joint Joint Joint

Position Internal forces Crown Invert
springline springline #1 #3 #4
Bending moment 412.8 -306.9 334.9 -376.5 -178.3 -108.4 113.2
Before the partial
(kN·m)
failure
Axial force (kN) 1803.1 1741.7 372.3 1823.4 2594.2 671.2 2523.1
Bending moment 550.6 -428.5 514.7 -556.5 308.4 -258.2 266.7
At 5.58 s after the
(kN·m)
partial failure
Axial force (kN) 1279.6 2323.1 365.2 1750.9 1697.0 1032.0 1957.4

PT
6.2.2 Failure criteria of the segment and the joint

RI
Assume that the strength design of the prototype tunnel in this study was the same as

SC
that of a real project in Tianjin [38], in which the tunnel segment is in the form of
NU
symmetrical reinforcement. The ultimate strength envelope curve of the segment can be

calculated according to the Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB 50010-2010)
MA

[52]. The ultimate strength envelope curve of the circumferential joint was derived

based on the mechanical model of the joint, as shown in Fig. 23, and the derivation
D

procedure will be described in detail below. For the joints under negative and positive
E

bending moments, the derivation procedures are similar.

PT

fck

h0
CE

h0 x
σ0(ε0)
t d x
d
N
AC

θ t
M Bolt T

Tensile member

Fig. 23 Mechanical model of the joint [37]

The failure modes in the joint area include the crushing of the concrete and the failure

of the bolt. Some assumptions are made to simplify the derivation of the failure criteria:

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

(a) the deformation complies with the plane section assumption, and the stress is equal

to zero in the open part of the joint; and (b) the influence depth of the compression

deformation in the concrete is equal to the height of the compressive zone.

(1) Crushing of the concrete:

According to the balance of force in the joint area and the assumptions, the following

PT
equations can be derived:

x  h0
N  T  Ec   c  b  (8)

RI
2

SC
 h x  h0 x  2h  h
M  Ec   c  b   h0  0     N  T d (9)
 2 2 NU3  2

2 Eb  A   cu
T  T0  d  x (10)
L
MA

 c x  h0
 (11)
 cu x

where Ec is the Young’s modulus of the concrete, Eb is the Young’s modulus of the bolt,
D

T0 is the pre-tightening force of the bolt, T is the tensile force of the bolt, εc is the yield
E
PT

strain of the concrete, εcu is the ultimate strain of the concrete, b is the width of the

segment, h is the thickness of the segment, h0 is the yield height of the segment, L is the
CE

length of the bolt, and A is the cross-sectional area of the bolt.

AC

Then, the equation of the envelope curve can be derived as

M  G  E 2  N 2   2  G  E  F  H  E  0.5  h  N  G  F 2  H  F  K  (12)

where variables E, F, G, H, and K can be expressed as follows:

2  L    cu   c 
E (13)
4  Eb  A   cu2  f ck  b  L  2   cu   c 

2    cu   c  L  T0  2  Eb  A   cu  d 
F (14)
4  Eb  A   cu2  f ck  b  L  2   cu   c 

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

f ck  b   c  3   cu  2   c 
G  0.5  f ck  b  (15)
6   cu   c 
2

2  Eb  A   cu2  d
H= (16)
L   cu   c 

2  Eb  A   cu  d 2
K  T0  d  (17)
L

PT
(2) Failure of the bolt:

RI
According to the balance of force in the joint area and the assumptions, the following

equations can be derived:

SC
x  h0
N  T  f ck  b  (18)
2
NU
 h x  h0 x  2h0  h
M  f ck  b   h0  0     N  T d (19)
 2 2 3  2
MA

T  f s ,u  A (20)
D

 s ,u
 A  Eb  T0   L x   d  x 

E

(21)
 c  A  E1 x  h0
PT

where fck is the compressive strength value of the concrete, fs,u is the ultimate tensile
CE

strength of the bolt, and εs,u is the ultimate tensile strain of the bolt.

The variables E, F and x can be expressed as follows:

AC

E
 s ,u
 A  Eb  T0   L
(22)
 c  A  E1

2 N  T 
F (23)
f ck  b

d  2 E  2 E  d   4 E  F
2

x (24)
2

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

By substituting the axial force N into Eq. (23) and substituting Eq. (22) and Eq. (23)

into Eq. (24), the equation of the envelope curve can be derived:

M    f ck  b  F 2  F  x  x 2   N   T  d
1 h
(25)
6 2

6.2.3 Failure analysis of the tunnel after the partial collapse in Test 4

PT
The safety of the adjacent tunnel lining after the partial collapse can be evaluated

RI
based on the failure criteria and the combinations of the internal forces in the tunnel

SC
lining. If the internal force combinations of the segments and joints all fall within their

ultimate strength envelope curves, the tunnel lining is safe. Otherwise, the tunnel lining
NU
adjacent to the partial collapse will fail, which indicates that progressive collapse occurs.

The ultimate strength envelope curves and the internal force combinations in the 8th
MA

ring before the partial failure and at 5.58 s after the partial failure are illustrated in Fig.

24.
D

Before the partial failure, the internal forces of both the segments and the joints were
E
PT

within the corresponding envelope curves. After the partial failure, the internal forces

moved from the beginnings to the ends of the red arrows. For the segments, the internal
CE

force combination was inside the envelope curve, indicating that the segment was safe.

However, the internal force combination in joint #3 was beyond the ultimate strength,
AC

which indicated that joint #3 would fail. Progressive collapse under the condition of

partial failure would occur in this situation. However, in Test 4, because the strength of

the joint was not scaled based on the scaling law and was larger than that corresponding

to the prototype tunnel, the adjacent tunnel linings remained intact after the partial

collapse. Therefore, the tunnel model needs to be improved to capture the progressive

collapse in the longitudinal direction via scaling the tunnel strength precisely.

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

2000 Ultimate strength envelope curve of the segment

Ultimate strength envelope curve in joints under the positive bending moment
1800 Ultimate strength envelope curve in joints under the negative bending moment
Internal force in the crown of the segment
1600 Internal force at the right springline of the segment
Internal force in the invert of the segment
1400 Internal force at the left springline of the segment
Internal force at the #1 joint (under the positive bending moment)
Moment M (kN· m)

1200 Internal force at the #3 joint (under the negative bending moment)
Internal force at the #4 joint (under the positive bending moment)
1000

PT
800

600

RI
400
Changing path of the combined

SC
200 internal forces
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
NU
Axial force N (kN)
Fig. 24 Changing paths of the combinations of the internal forces derived in numerical
MA

model 4

6.2.4 Influence of the cover depth on the failure mechanism

E D

To investigate the influence of the cover depth on the change of the internal forces of
PT

the segments and the joints, the pressures acting on the tunnel before and after the

partial collapse in Tests 1, 2 and 3 were also determined based on the model test results,
CE

and the tunnels sustained these pressures were calculated. The internal forces in the 8th
AC

ring before and after the partial failure derived from the numerical simulations of Tests

1, 2 and 3 are presented in Fig. 25. The variation patterns of the internal forces due to

partial failure in Tests 1–3 are similar to that in Test 4. However, the increases of the

internal forces become smaller when the burial depth is smaller, which is consistent

with Fig. 19. According to the changing paths of the internal force combinations in

Tests 1–3 and the failure criteria of the tunnel, the safety of the tunnel was also judged.

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

In Test 1 and Test 2, the tunnels were safe after the partial collapse. The internal force

combinations in the 8th ring at the key positions in Test 3 derived in the numerical

simulation are listed in Table 9, and their changing paths are illustrated in Fig. 26. As

shown in Fig. 26, the segment was safe. The internal force combination in joint #3 was

extremely close to the envelope, making it safe but in a dangerous condition.

PT
Table 9 Combined internal forces in the 8th ring at the key positions derived in the

RI
numerical simulation in numerical models 1, 2 and 3.

SC
Numerical Internal Right Left Joint
Position Crown Invert Joint #1 Joint #4
model forces springline springline #3
Bending 80.00 -59.20 67.20 -72.00 35.20 -20.80 22.40
Before
NU
moment
the
(kN·m)
partial
Axial force 234.56 552.16 174.16 586.32 623.36 264.8 628.24
failure
(kN)
Model 1
At 5.58 Bending 84.80 -70.40 89.60 -91.20 49.60 -48.00 49.60
MA

s after moment
the (kN·m)
partial Axial force 198.72 396.24 363.12 641.20 399.76 242.64 608.32
failure (kN)
Bending 195.20 -144.00 160.00 -174.40 84.80 -49.60 54.40
Before
moment
D

the
(kN·m)
partial
Axial force 297.76 1063.76 146.56 1147.68 1283.68 407.68 1285.04
E

failure
(kN)
Model 2
At 5.58 Bending 233.60 -184.00 225.60 -236.80 132.80 -115.2 118.40
PT

s after moment
the (kN·m)
partial Axial force 208.96 853.04 746.80 1374.48 792.24 511.12 1391.12
failure (kN)
CE

Bending 308.80 -228.80 248.00 -280.00 132.80 -80.00 84.80

Before
moment
the
(kN·m)
partial
Axial force 372.32 1588.72 145.04 1722.56 1954.08 559.12 1939.2
failure
AC

(kN)
Model 3
At 5.58 Bending 393.60 -308.80 368.00 -398.40 220.80 -187.2 192.00
s after moment
the (kN·m)
partial Axial force 203.68 1354.48 1211.44 2182.24 1204.64 825.20 2269.52
failure (kN)

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

PT
RI
SC
NU
(a)
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

(b)
Fig. 25 Internal forces of the 8th ring before the partial failure and 5.58 s after the

partial failure in numerical models 1, 2, 3 and 4: (a) bending moments and (b) axial

forces

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

2000 Ultimate strength envelope curve of the segment

Ultimate strength envelope curve in joints under the positive bending moment
1800 Ultimate strength envelope curve in joints under the negative bending moment
Internal force in the crown of the segment
1600 Internal force at the right springline of the segment
Internal force in the invert of the segment
1400 Internal force at the left springline of the segment
Internal force at the #1 joint (under the positive bending moment)
Moment M (kN· m)

1200 Internal force at the #3 joint (under the negative bending moment)
Internal force at the #4 joint (under the positive bending moment)
1000

PT
800

600

RI
400
Changing path of the combined

SC
200 internal forces
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
NU
Axial force N (kN)
Fig. 26 Changing path of the combined internal forces corresponding to the prototype
MA

tunnel in numerical model 3

D

7. Conclusions
E

This study carried out a series of model tests investigating the tunnel collapse
PT

mechanism due to the removal of segments at the springline in sandy ground. The

influences of partial failure on the adjacent linings due to the arching effect and the
CE

inrush of the soil were discussed. Via 3D numerical analyses, the distributions of the
AC

bending moments and axial forces in both the segments and joints of the adjacent

linings were obtained. Based on the failure criteria, the safety of the adjacent linings

was evaluated, and the following conclusions may be drawn:

(1) After the removal of the initially failed segment, the movements of soil around the

failed segment were similar to a horizontal trapdoor, which created a horizontal arching

zone. Afterwards, the soil outside the openings became loosened and slid into the tunnel,

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

which caused a sharp increase in the bending moments of the adjacent linings due to the

resistance loss of the soils around the openings. The adverse effect of the partial failure

on the adjacent linings was primarily caused by the inrush of the sand into the tunnel

rather than the arching effect.

(2) The affected tunnel length of the horizontal arching zone caused by the movement

PT
of the initially failed segment was approximately 2B (where B is the width of one ring)

on each side, which is almost the same as those in the conventional trapdoor tests. The

RI
affected length of the entire partial failure process was also approximately 2–3B.

SC
(3) The influence of the cover depth on the collapse mechanism was also investigated.

An increase in the cover-depth-to-diameter ratio (C/D) aggravates the development of

NU
the maximum bending moment but was shown to have little impact on the affected
MA

length of the tunnel lining.

(4) A 3D load-structure model was used to obtain the internal forces in both the
D

segments and bolts of the tunnel. This procedure enabled us to compare the loads
E

sustained by both the segments and bolts to the relevant failure criteria so that the safety
PT

of the tunnel could be evaluated. The results indicated that when C/D is larger than 3.0,

the joints in the adjacent rings may fail, causing further collapse.
CE

This study aimed at providing feasible access to explore the influence of segment
AC

failure on adjacent linings and to evaluate the possibility of further damage to the tunnel.

However, to improve current design theory in tunnel practice to prevent progressive

collapse, more sophisticated model tests are still needed in future studies, such as model

tests considering the scaling of the structure strength in addition to stiffness, which can

simulate actual progressive collapse processes and provide more information on the

subsequent response of the tunnel system under secondary damage.

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No.

2014M561186), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.

51508382) and the Key Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(Grant No. 41630641). Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

PT
RI
References

SC
[1] K.M. Lee, X.Y. Hou, X.W. Ge, Y. Tang, An analytical solution for a jointed

shield-driven tunnel lining, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 25 (2001) 365–
NU
390. doi: 10.1002/nag.134.
MA

[2] International Tunnelling Association Working Group No. 2, Guidelines for the

design of shield tunnel lining. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 15 (2000) 303–331.
D

[3] F. Jiang-hua, Z. Zhi-hong, Z. Jing-yu, Application of artificial freezing to

E

recovering a collapsed tunnel in Shanghai metro No.4 line, China Civ. Eng. J. 42
PT

(2009) 124–128. [in Chinese].

[4] Y. Lei, The repair construction technology for a tunnel accident in a city.
CE

Underground Transportation Projects and Work Safety. in: Proceedings of

AC

China'5th International Symposium on Tunneling, 2011, pp. 48-52. (in Chinese)

[5] B. Yun, Major Accidents in Underground Engineering and Repair Technology at

Home and Abroad. China Architecture and Building Press, 2012. (in Chinese)

[6] D.M. Frangopol, J.P. Curley, Effects of damage and redundancy on structural

reliability, J. Struct. Eng. 113 (1987) 1533-1549. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9445(1987)113:7(1533).

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

[7] D.O. Dusenberry, G. Juneja, Review of existing guidelines and provisions

related to progressive collapse. http://www.nibs.org, 2002.

[8] S.M. Marjanishvili, Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse, J.

Perform. Constr. Facil. 18 (2004) 79-85. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-

3828(2004)18:2(79).

PT
[9] U. Starossek, Progressive collapse of structures: nomenclature and procedures,

Struct. Eng. Int. 16 (2006) 113–117. doi: 10.2749/101686606777962477.

RI
[10] E. Masoero, F.K. Wittel, H.J. Herrmann, B.M. Chiaia, DEM simulations of the

SC
progressive collapse of framed structures.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.385.1819&rep=rep1&
NU
type=pdf.
MA

[11] GSA, Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal

Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects, 2003.

D

[12] National Research Council of Canada, National Building Code of Canada.

E

Ottawa, Canada, 2003.

PT

[13] BS8110-1 Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and

Construction, 1997.
CE

[14] EN1991-1-7 Eurocode I: Actions on Structures, Parts 1-7: General Actions -

AC

Accidental Actions, 2006.

[15] U. Starossek, Typology of progressive collapse, Eng. Struct. 29 (2007) 2302-

2307. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.025.

[16] K. Menchel, T.J. Massart, Y. Rammer, P. Bouillard, Comparison and study of

different progressive collapse simulation techniques for RC structures, J. Struct.

Eng. 135 (2009) 685-697. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:6(685).

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

[17] E. Murtha-Smith, Alternate path analysis of space trusses for progressive

collapse, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (1988) 1978-1999. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9445(1988)114:9(1978).

[18] W.F. Lee, K. Ishihara, Forensic diagnosis of a shield tunnel failure, Eng. Struct.

32 (2010) 1830-1837. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.03.012.

PT
[19] C. Chen, W.F. Lee, Forensic investigation of a disastrous failure at the arrival

end of a station of the Kaohsiung mass rapid transit system, in: Proceedings of

RI
International Conference on Forensic Engineering, 2007.

SC
[20] W.F. Lee, C.L. Hung, K.J. Kuo, J.I.-W. Chen, S.-M. Woo, Forensic analysis of

the cases of failure at the arrival end of O2 Station, Sino-Geotechnics 105 (2005)
NU
35–46.
MA

[21] Z.X. Zhang, X.Y. Hu, K.D. Scott, A discrete numerical approach for modeling

face stability in slurry shield tunnelling in soft soils, Comput. Geotechnics 38

D

(2011) 94–104. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.10.011.

E

[22] R.P. Chen, L.J. Tang, D.S. Ling, Y.M. Chen, Y.M. Chen. FACE stability
PT

analysis of shallow shield tunnels in dry sandy ground using the discrete element

method, Comput. Geotechnics 38 (2011) 187–195. doi:

CE

10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.11.003.
AC

[23] E. Leca, L. Dormieux, Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of

shallow circular tunnels in frictional material, Géotechnique 40 (1990) 581–606.

doi: 10.1680/geot.1990.40.4.581.

[24] A. Kirsch, Experimental investigation of the face stability of shallow tunnels in

sand, Acta Geotech. 5 (2010) 43–62. doi: 10.1007/s11440-010-0110-7.

51
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

[25] G. Mollon, D. Dias, A. Soubra, Face stability analysis of circular tunnels driven

by a pressurized shield, J. Geotech. Geoenviron Eng. 136 (2010) 215–229. doi:

10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000194.

[26] W. Fellin, J. King, A. Kirsch, M. Oberguggenberger, Uncertainty modelling and

sensitivity analysis of tunnel face stability, Struct. Saf. 32 (2010) 402–410. doi:

PT
10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.06.001.

[27] J.S. Qin, W. Zhu, J. Chen, Study of dislocation of duct pieces and crack

RI
problems caused by shield attitude control, Construction Technology 33 (2004)

SC
25–27 [in Chinese].

[28] H.H. Mo, J.S. Chen, Study on inner force and dislocation of segments caused by
NU
shield machine attitude, Tunnelling Undergr. Space Technol. 23 (2008) 281-291.
MA

doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2007.06.007.

[29] Z. Wang, L. Wang, L. Li, J. Wang, Failure mechanism of tunnel lining joints
D

and bolts with uneven longitudinal ground settlement, Tunnelling Undergr.

E

Space Technol. 40 (2014) 300-308. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2013.10.007.

PT

[30] A. Altaee, B.H. Fellenius, Physical modeling in sand, Can. Geotechn. J. 31

(1994) 420-431. doi: 10.1139/t94-049.

CE

[31] A.D. Gibson, Physical Scale Modeling of Geotechnical Structures at One-G.

AC

California Institute of Technology, 1997.

[32] R.F. Scott, Centrifuge modeling and technology: a survey, Rev. Franc. Geotech.

48 (1989) 15-34.

[33] P.J. Meymand, Shaking Table Scale Model Tests of Nonlinear Soil-Pile-

Superstructure Interaction in Soft Clay. Doctoral Dissertation, University of

California, Berkeley, 1998.

52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

[34] A.A. Sonin, A generalization of the Π-theorem and dimensional analysis, Proc.

Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (2004) 8525-8526. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0402931101.

[35] L.I. Sedov, Similarity and Dimensional Analysis in Mechanics. Academic Press,

New York, 1959, pp. 152.

[36] Y. Fei, G. Chang-fei, L. Sun Hai-dong, X. Yan-peng, Yong-xu, Zhou Zhuo.

PT
Model test study on effective ratio of segment transverse bending rigidity of

shield tunnel. Tunneling and underground, Space Technol. 41 (2014) 193–205.

RI
[37] Y. Koyama, Study on the Improvement of Design Method of Segments for

SC
Shield-Driven Tunnels. RTRI Report: Special No. 33, RTRI, 2000, pp. 114 (in

Japanese).
NU
[38] G. Zheng, T. Zhang, Y. Diao, Mechanism and countermeasures of preceding
MA

tunnel distortion induced by succeeding EPBS tunnelling in close proximity,

Comput. Geotechnics 66 (2015) 53-65. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.01.008.

D

[39] W. Van Empel, R.G.A. De Waal, C. Van der Veen, Segmental tunnel lining
E

behaviour in axial direction, Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction

PT

in Soft Ground, Rotterdam (2000) 357-362.

[40] W.Q. Ding, Y.C. Peng, Z.G. Yan, B. Shen, H. Zhu, X. Wei, Full-scale testing
CE

and modeling of the mechanical behavior of shield TBM tunnel joints, Struct.
AC

Eng. Mech. 45 (2013) 337-354. doi: 10.12989/sem.2013.45.3.337.

[41] Y. Fang, T. Chen, R. Holtz, W. Lee, Reduction of boundary friction in model

tests, Geotech. Test. J. 27 (2003) 1-10.

[42] C. Leung, M.A. Meguid, An experimental study of the effect of local contact

loss on the earth pressure distribution on existing tunnel linings. Tunn. Undergr.

Space Technol. 26 (2011) 139-145. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2010.08.003.

53
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

[43] G.S. Pardo, E. Sáez, Experimental and numerical study of arching soil effect in

coarse sand, Comput. Geotechnics 57 (2014) 75-84. doi:

10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.01.005.

[44] T. Adachi, M. Kimura, K. Kishida, Experimental study on the distribution of

earth pressure and surface settlement through three-dimensional trapdoor tests,

PT
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18 (2003) 171-183. doi: 10.1016/S0886-

7798(03)00025-7.

RI
[45] R. Wang, D. Zhang Mechanism of transverse deformation and assessment index

SC
for shield tunnels in soft clay under surface surcharge. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 35

(2013) 1092-1101. (in Chinese)

NU
[46] Itasca Consulting Group, FLAC fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, version
MA

4.0. User’s manual, 2009.

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

D

segmental tunnel lining behaviour. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 37 (2013)

E

115–127.
PT

[48] N.A. Do, D. Dias, P.P. Oreste, I. Djeran-Maigre, 3D modelling for mechanized

tunnelling in soft ground - influence of the constitutive model. Am. J. Appl. Sci.
CE

10 (2013) 863–875
AC

[49] N.A. Do, D. Dias, P. Oreste, I. Djeran-Maigre, Three-dimensional numerical

simulation for mechanized tunnelling in soft ground: the influence of the joint

pattern. Acta Geotechnica 9 (2014) 673-694.

[50] C. Thienert, M. Pulsfort, Segment design under consideration of the material

used to fill the annular gap. Geomech. Tunn. 4 (2011) 665–679

54
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

[51] D. Zeng, C. He, Numerical simulation of segment joint bending stiffness of

metro shield tunnel. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 39 (2004) 744-748. (in Chinese)

[52] GB 50010—2010 Code for Design of Concrete Structures. China Architecture

and Building Press, Beijing, 2010. (in Chinese)

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

55
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Collapse mechanism of shield tunnels

Highlights

 Partial failure of shield tunnels was simulated using model tests.

 The influence of partial failure on the adjacent linings was analyzed.

 The failure criteria for both segments and joints were derived.

 The evaluation of the tunnel safety under partial collapse was discussed.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

56