Development of new approaches for TBM tunnel design

Peter -M. Mayer

Ed. Zublin AG , Department of Tunnel Engineering, Germany

ABSTRACT: Growing needs for modern transportation and utility networks have increased the demand for a
more extensive and elaborated use of underground space. The development of tunnelling projects under heavily
populated cities has been rapidly increased around the world during the last decades. Since tunnel construction
can significantly affect existing structures, construction methods have to provide maximum safety inside and
outside the tunnel. Conventional engineering models and codes for lining design simplify as e.g. by neglecting
longitudinal joints the interaction between rings through lateral joints. However,these days, in mechanized tun-
nelling we have to deal with a segmented lining system in contrast to a continuous tube (conventional approach)
that provide no information regarding lateral coupling and the longitudinal joints of the segmented lining sys-
tem. New design approaches for TBM tunnels, three-dimensional finite element analyses of a TBM tunnel,
where Ed. Zublin AG is involved as designer and contractor, are presented in this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION ness) are very high. The simulation of the coupling

In order to design any tunnel lining it is important
to know and understand the functional requirements.
These can widely vary,and which are influenced by
many factors. A durable lining performs satisfactorily
in its working environment throughout its designated
service life. One important aspect regarding design
life is the watertightness of the structure. Design of
joints should provide for fast and durable connections
with sufficient strength to meet erection sequences,
support requirements and to maintain the compres-
sion of the sealing gaskets. Particular attention must
be paid to the design of the longitudinal joints. High
level contact stresses due to joint geometry and ring
build may cause cracking. This paper presents a case
study (Katzenberg Tunnel) where new approaches for
the design of tunnel lining are described.
2 KATZENBERG TUNNEL-KEY FACTS
between rings presented in this paper is highly com-
plex and extensive and leads to rigorous requirements
regarding allowable relative displacements between
segmental rings. The swellability of clay was ana-
lyzed independently, and shows to bear an unfavor-
able effect on the tunnel design.
3 GEOLOGY
The designated tunnel alignment for Katzenberg Tun-
nel is dominated by a heterogeneous geology, which
partially alters frequently between non-weathered to
completely weathered clay / mudstone, marls, sand-
stone and limestone. The mudstone formations bear
the potential for swelling and are thought of reaching
swelling pressures up to 0.5 MN/m2 . The rock stiff-
ness varies between 50 and 1200 MPa. Various fault
zones are intersected. Maximum overburden is 110 m
and a hydraulic head of 90 m is expected.

The Katzenberg tunnel is designed to be a highspeed

railway tunnel, for a maximal train velocity of 330
km/h. The structure consists of two tubes, each 9385
m long. The outer diameter is 10.8 m and the shield
has a diameter of 11.6 m, 19 cross-passages and two
ventilation shafts each with a height of 60 m. The tun-
nel lining consists of a singular shell of segment lin-
ings. The requirements for the serviceability state in
terms of expected tunnel impermeability (leak tight-
4 MATERIAL MODEL FOR SOIL
4.1 Preliminary Study
FE calculations with a preliminary material model for
soil behavior were performed in order to check the
non-linear elasto-ideal plastic material model for the
soil or rock. The model contains the Mohr-Coulomb
and Matsuoka-Nakai failure criterions.

145
Table 1 details material parameters used for the FE tunnel lining is modelled with quadratic shape func-
simulations. tions elements (27 nodes). These higher-order ele-
ments allow for more accurate calculations than the
Soil Es c linear elements regarding momentum, normal and
MN kN kN shear forces. Details of numerical modelling of lining
m2
m3 m2
can be found in (Hilber & Raisch 1982).
Meletta,
highly 150 0.35 22 32.5 100 2.5
weathered
Meletta, 150 0.30 23 35 150 5
fresh Hinge element

Tab. 1: Material properties used for the FE calcula-

tions

To evaluate the tensile stresses, the Rankine Criterion,

known as Tension-cut-off was used.

Displacement (mm)
4.2 Hardening Soil Model
For the soil layers an elasto-plastic type of isotropic
hyperbolic material model was chosen, that was for-
mulated in the framework of hardening plasticity. An
important advantage of the Hardening Soil Model
compared to Mohr-Coulomb Model is the consider-
ation of the non-linear stress-strain relationship. The length of the beam
(m)
HSM considers the stress-dependency of stiffness
moduli and a hyperbolic stress-strain curve is used in- Fig. 1: Hinge element: numerical tests
stead of a bi-linear curve. Soil stiffness is described
more accurately by using three different input values:
triaxial loading stiffness, E50 , triaxial unloading re- 5.2 Jointed Rings
loading stiffness, Eur
ref , and the odometer loading stiff-
ness, Eoed . A detailed description of the model can be To study the bearing capacity of the system tunnel
found in the paper of (Schanz 1998). lining-soil, interface elements were used. The longi-
tudinal joints between single liner segments are con-
The material parameters used for modeling of the soil sidered as concrete hinges. Their behaviour was cali-
behavior with HSM are presented in Table 2. brated with test results from Leonhardt and Reimann
(Leonhardt & Reimann 1965). These interface hinge
ref ref ref
Soil E50 50 m Eur 50 ur elements allow non-linear behaviour. The rotation
MN kN kN resistance of the hinge is described by a retrac-
m2 - - m2 m2 - tion bending moment, which creates an eccentricity.
Meletta, The relation moment-rotation was empirically estab-
medium to lished from laboratory tests performed by Leonhardt /
completely 157 0.32 0.5 235 100 0.2 Reimann- see Heft 175 DAfStb. Numerical tests were
weathered conducted to study the behaviour of these hinge el-
Meletta, ements ( Figure 1). The non-linear behavior of the
150 0.30 23 35 150 5 hinge element is shown in Figure 1. For a value of
fresh
P = 10 kN, the beam responds within the elastic do-
Tab. 2: Soil properties adopted for HSM main. When increasing P to 56 KN, the the influence
of the hinge element becomes obvious and the hinge
element shows plastic behaviour.
5 NUMERICAL MODELLING For the numerical calculations the empirical formula-
5.1 Model Description tion was improved using the bilinear approximation
of Janssen (Janssen 1983). The dependence on rota-
The numerical solver used was three-dimensional fi- tion angle and related retraction bending moment m
nite element code of FEAT (Roddeman 1993). The can be determined and is illustrated in Figure 2.

146
 0,4
0,35 Leonhardt/
Reimann
0,3 0.28
m=M/(N*b)

0,25 approx. for

M Fl the frame
0,2 model
0,15
c
0,1
0,05 3.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
alpha *b*E/N

Fig. 2: m- dependency according to Leonhardt and Fig. 3: Simulation of longitudinal and circumferential
Janseen lining joints.

The equation for the elastic moment of the joint is: The circumferential joints used for Katzenberg tunnel
are modelled using thin continuum volume elements
M = c (1) (1cm thickness); their material behaviour follows the
Mohr -Coulomb criterion (Figure 4).
where M = moment, = rotation angle and c =
spring stiffness. The bending moment is determined
with the equation:
Z
M= n sdA = Km I0 (2)

with I = l3 /12 moment of inertia and Km = 12c /l3

the bedding stiffness.

5.3 Coupled Rings

Figure 3 shows a realistic simulation of the tunnel lin- Fig. 4: Katzenberg Tunnel- modelling of the cou-
ing behavior, where longitudinal and lateral joints are pled rings with longitudinal joints (yellow) and lateral
not neglected. Coupled rings consider the ring -joint joints (red)
interaction and can be implemented into the model in
two ways: To estimate the loads transfer in the domain of lateral
joints the material properties of the coupling element
1) using discrete coupling elements representing need to be known. The data that were considered for
the cam and pocket or the design of the lateral coupling for Katzenberg tun-
nel are described in the report from STUVA (STUVA
2) using special continuum elements that describe 1996) and TNO (COB 1997). Figure 5 shows the lab-
the friction force that is activated within the hard- oratory test results on the coupling elements used for
board placed between two adjacent segments. the 4. Elbe Tunnel Tube.
Input data for the modelling of the Katzenberg Tunnel
The later approach was chosen for Katzenberg tunnel lining rings were derived from the stress-strain rela-
coupling that modelled the lateral joint. tionship of the linear part, along which stresses range
from 9 MN/m2 to 15 MN/m2 (see Figure 5).
If the longitudinal joint are strained due to local or
global external loads, a frictional coupling force be- The input parameters for the continuum lateral joints
tween the ring with higher stiffness (no joint along the are: coupling surface for the FE calculations AF E =
longitudinal contact surface) and the one with lower 19.22m2 , secant modulus EM = 28 MN/m2 and Pois-
stiffness (with a joint along the longitudinal contact sons ration = 0.2. The design strength parameters
surface) will be activated. Due to this frictional force for the lateral joints are analyzed with two comple-
the bending moments increase for the stiffer ring. mentary models:

147
 35 250
As it was observed, the hard-pressed fibre plate
30
200
present a peak and a residual value of the coupling
force (Qres = 70%Qmax ). The kaubit coupling ele-

E-Modul [MPa]
25

ments have an elastic- ideal plastic behavior. The tests

Stress [MPa]

20 150

showed the hardboards to have a peak and a resid-

ual value of the coupling force (Qres = 70%Qmax ),
15
100
= 5,9 E = /
10
= 98,3 whereas the coupling elements of kaubit behave
50
5 = 0,060 elastic-plastically.
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Strain [-]
0 5 10 15 20
Stress [MPa]
25 30 35 The maximum shear stress for the hardboards of
f ailure = 2 MN/m2 was estimated according to Eu-
rocode 5, with a safety factor of = 5. The maximal
tangential force of the coupling elements was calcu-
Fig. 5: Laboratory tests on coupling elements for Elbe lated for an effective surface of the coupling system
Tunnel Ar = 5.425 m2 with the equation:

- model one: failure at the contact area between

the coupling elements and the concrete,i.e. ex- Q = 2/3Ar f ailure = 7.23 (4)
ceeding frictional force
The cohesion was calculated similarly acc. to the first
- model two: failure of the coupling element itself, failure model to be c = 376 kN/m2 . The coupling
i.e. the hardboard. element behavior as obtained from laboratory tests
was modelled using FEM. The softening behavior ob-
The experiments conducted for the Elbe Tunnel had served after the peak was simulated by reducing the
shown that the friction coefficient (concrete- cou- transmittable coupling forces and by successive fail-
pling elements) varies between 0. 25 - 0. 29. For a ure of single coupling plates.
middle value of = 0.26 and a hydraulic jack force
of 48 MN resulted a transversal force of 12.5 MN. 6 FINITE ELEMENT CALCULATIONS
The cohesion of the coupling elements, obtained from
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is presented in the The 3-D FEM-model simulates a tunnel section of ca.
following: 17 m length and with an outer diameter of 10.8 m.
This model section consists of nine rings, each made
c = 12.5/19.22 (3) up of seven segments, i.e. six regular segments and
one smaller key stone (Figure 3). A regular segment
is 60 cm thick, 2 m wide, and weighs 16 tons. The
The friction angle and the angle of dilatancy concretes compressive strength is given as C50/60.
were considered zero. The calculations yielded a cou- The longitudinal joints show a 30 offset from one
pling force greater than 12.5 MN, this exceeding the ring to the next, and each ring features seven coupling
bearing capacity of the coupling elements. The max- systems. The model features approximately 15,876
imum shear stress of the hardboard limits the trans- nodes and 1,440 elements. For the ring-soil interface,
mittable coupling forces. Figure 6 shows results from a spring model characterizes the subgrade modulus
lab tests on hardboards and kaubit-plates, which were that acts normal to the ring. The following assump-
performed at TNO. tions were made for the subgrade modulus:
Qmax
100
linear elastic radial subgrade along the circum-
70%
ference of one ring,
Qres

tension in the radial springs is not allowed,

Q

the formula kn = ES /R is valid whereas k stands

for the subgrade modulus (normal bedding), E
for the elasticity modulus, and R is the system
Displacement Displacement
radius of our modelled ring,
Fig. 6: Behavior of coupling elements subjected to
shear loading no tangential subgrade or tangential loads

148
The material parameters for the tunnel lining are: E =
37000 MN/m2 , = 0.2 and = 25kN/m3 . The input
data for the coupling elements are: E = 27.7MN/m2 ,
= 0.2, = = 0 and c = 376 kN/m2 . An addi-
tional calculation for a smooth coupling system was
performed, in order to check the plausibility of the re-
sults. For this purpose the cohesion of the coupling el-
ement was considered zero. The normal bedding was
verified with a quasi- 2D -FE model that focussed on
the surrounding soil / rock (Figure 7). To determine
the subgrade modulus a continuum ring with a length
of 2 m was simulated, where the ring stiffness was
reduced acc. to an approach by Muir-Wood (Muir-
Wood 1975).
10 m
7,7 m
111,1 m
45,1 m
25,6 m
19,2 m
81,1 m
10,8 m
55,5 m
Fig. 7: Numerical model for verification of the normal
bedding
The model mesh extends horizontally ca. 50 m from
the tunnel axes to the edge, which amounts to four
times tunnel diameter; vertically the model extends
25.5 m below the tunnel base.
To ensure that the boundaries do not significantly af-
fect the results, the sedimentary cover was limited to
44.8 m. For soil layers exceeding that realm, a sur-
face load of 790.7 kN/m2 was applied. The numerical
modelling of tunnel construction required four cal-
culation steps (see Figure 8). The unloading process
of the rock mass is obtained by reducing the forces
around the excavation by 50%, which amounts to a
volume loss of 0.48%.During step one, the layers are
activated and soil/rock properties are allocated. Dis-
placements obtained during this step are disregarded.
During step 2, the forces in the excavation plane are
reduced and during step 3 the soil elements inside
149
the tunnel are switched off (excavation) while the ele-
ments of the tunnel lining are switched on (construc-
tion).
t = 0,0 bis 1,0 t = 1,0 bis 2,0
G
t = 2,0 bis 3,0 t = 3,0 bis 4,0
Fig. 8: Construction stages for tunelling process
For the numerical simulation, the forces in excavation
plane are reduced to zero. During the forth and last
calculation phase a radial swelling pressure (maximal
500 kN/m2 ) is applied to the invert of the tunnel.
7 RESULTS
Tunnel and soil/rock behaviour were modelled us-
ing two material laws, Mohr-Coulomb (MCM), and
Hardening-Soil (HSM). Results presented here focus
on the soil bedding for one single ring, before the
swelling pressure was applied, and for coupled rings
during the last construction stage.
7.1 Continuum Model
Figure 9 illustrates the difference between both mod-
els. Unloading, in this case resulting from the exca-
vation of the tunnel, is associated with a soil stiffness
increase, which is simulated by both materials laws.
However, the stiffness increase produced by MCM is
lower than by HSM, which led to unrealistic deforma-
tions within the soil and the lining annulus. The cal-
culations show that HSM reproduces the stress-strain
relationship more realistically.
The HSM calculations were validated with simula-
tions of triaxial tests where the secant stiffness of a
soil subjected to similar load conditions as around the
tunnel was calculated. The stiffness corresponding to
a 50 % maximum shear strength (565 MN/m2 ) dif-
fers slightly from the stiffness produced after the first
stages of tunnel construction Es1 = 430 MN/m2 (see
Fig. 10).
 -2500 -2500

Ring 5 Ring 6
-2000 -2000
sigyy [kN/m^2]

sigyy [kN/m^2]
-1500 -1500 w [mm] w [mm]

-1000 -1000

10.50
10.50

11.82
11.82

13.57
13.57

17.70

15.59
9.07
15.58

9.07

17.71
12.70
-500

11.26
-500

16.53
9.98
11.26
16.52

9.98

15.41
14.11
12.70
15.40
14.11
0 0
0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.005 0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.005
eptyy [-] eptyy [-] Fig. 12: Displacements of two coupled adjacent rings
Fig. 9: Stress-strain diagram for soil behavior mod-
elled with MCM ( left) and HSM (right) calculation M N Q u
-2500 -2000
Model kN/m2 kN/m kN/m mm
qr = 2158 kN/m continuum
-2000 -1500 Muir-Wood 523.1 1845 279.7 14.1
(one ring)
1 [kN/m]

1 [kN/m]

-1500 -1000
E S2 = 689 MN/m FEM
-1000
0,5 qr = 1079 kN/m
coupled rings 553.1 1828 331 9.68
-500

E 50 = 565 MN/m
E S1 = 430 MN/m
jointed
-500
0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05
0
0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.005
one ring 467.2 1950 246.9 17.47
1 [-] 1 [-]
FEM
562.9 1921 315.9 10.33
Fig. 10: Comparison of results from laboratory tests coupled rings
with FE calculations using HSM Tab. 3: Calculations results for phase fourth
7.2 Coupled Rings
Results from calculations of tunnel lining without continuum and coupled rings for the Katzenberg Tun-
joints and coupled rings with joints are compared. nel lining. Note, that that the bending moment for the
Figure 11 shows the deformed shape of a meso-scale jointed coupled rings is largest (562,9 kNm/m). The
model without joints owing to swelling pressure . reason for this difference is the introduction of a cou-
pling system within the longitudinal joint.

8 SUMMARY
The research presented is summarized as follows:

1) The described FE-models allow a rather real-

istic simulation of loading due to swelling pres-
sure onto single shell-linings.
2) It was shown that the type of coupling system
is significant for the design of tunnel lining.
3) In order to approximate a realistic subgrade
Fig. 11: FE model for 9 rings- no coupling elements modulus advanced material models are neces-
sary.
A maximal displacement of 17.5 mm is obtained, with
the displacement for the adjacent ring being 12.3 mm. REFERENCES
The influence of the swelling pressure on the tunnel
behaviour is illustrated by the difference of 5.2 mm COB (1997). Experimenteel onderzoek naar het af-
between two adjacent rings. The maximum rotation schuifgedrag van ringvoegen. TNO Bouw.
of the longitudinal joints is 1.4 /1000. Maximum dis- Hilber, H. & Raisch, D. (1982). Nichtlineare zweidimen-
placements for coupled rings are shown in Figure 12. sionale Finite-Element-Modelle fur praxisnahe Tunnel-
berechnungen. In Proceedings of the 11th Int. Finite-
Table 3 compares maximum internal forces and dis- Element Congress, pp. 119161. Baden-Baden edited by
placements from FE simulations using an annulus ICOSS GmbH, Stuttgart.

150
Janssen, P. (1983). Tragverhalten von Tunnelausbauten mit
Gelenktuebbings. Bericht Nr. 83-41 aus dem Institut
fuer Statik der technischen Universitaet Braunschweig.
Leonhardt, F. & Reimann, H. (1965). Betongelenke, Ver-
suchsbericht, Vorschlaege zur Bemessung und kon-
struktiven Ausbildung. Dafstb. Verlag Ernst und Sohn,
Berlin.
Muir-Wood, A. (1975). The circular tunnel in elastic
ground. In Geotechnique 25, pp. 115127.
Roddeman, D. (1993). Tochnog professional, version 2.0 -
user manual. Print by FEAT.
Schanz, T. (1998). Zur Modellierung des mechanischen
Verhaltens von Reibungsmaterialien. Ph. D. thesis, Mit-
teilungshefte des Instituts fuer Geotechnik, Heft 45.
STUVA (1996). Eignungspruefungen 4. Roehre Elbtunnel,
Versuche zur Verdrehsteifigkeit. Koeln.

151