Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435441
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Avenue, MC-250,
Urbana, IL 61801, United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Haengdang-Dong, Seoul, Korea
c
CH2M HIL, 13921 Park Center Road, Suite 600, Herndon, VA 201, United States
Received 2 September 2004; received in revised form 28 January 2005; accepted 18 February 2005
Available online 21 April 2005
Abstract
Two analytical solutions for estimating the ovaling deformation and forces in circular tunnels due to soilstructure interaction
under seismic loading are widely used in engineering practice. This paper addresses an unresolved issue related to discrepancy
between the two solutions. A comparison of the two solutions shows that the calculated forces and displacements are identical
for the condition of full-slip between the tunnel lining and ground. However, the calculated lining thrusts dier by an order of mag-
nitude when assuming no-slip between the tunnel lining and the ground. The analytical solutions are compared to numerical anal-
yses of the no-slip condition using the nite element method to validate which of the two solutions provide the correct solution.
Numerical analysis results agree with one of the analytical solution that provides a higher estimate of the thrust on the tunnel lining,
thus highlighting the limitation of the other analytical solution.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0886-7798/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2005.02.004
436 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435441
Nomenclature
2. Analytical solutions of ovaling deformation of circular If the ovalling stiness is very small compared to the
tunnel with soilstructure interaction surrounding ground, the tunnel distortion or diametric
strain is calculated assuming an unlined tunnel (referred
The simplest form of estimating ovaling deformation to as perforated ground):
is to assume the deformations in a circular tunnel to be
Dd free-field
identical to free-eld, thereby ignoring the tunnel 2cmax 1 mm
ground interaction. This assumption is appropriate d
when the ovaling stiness of the lined tunnel is equal Eq: 9 in Hashash et al. (2001). 2
to that of the surrounding ground. The circular This deformation is much greater in the case where
tunnelground shearing is then modeled as a continuous the presence of the tunnel is included compared to the
medium (referred to as non-perforated ground) without case where only the continuous ground deformation is
the presence of the tunnel (Fig. 1), in which the diamet- assumed.
ric strain for a circular section is calculated as: In most cases the lining ground interaction has to be
taken into account. As a rst step, the relative stiness
of the tunnel to the ground is quantied by the com-
pressibility and exibility ratios (C and F), which are
measures of the extensional and exural stinesses
(resistance to ovaling), respectively, of the medium rela-
tive to the lining (Hoeg, 1968; Peck et al., 1972):
Em 1 m2l r
C
El t1 mm 1 2mm
Eq: 19 in Hashash et al. (2001); 3
Em 1 m2l r3
F
6El I 1 mm
Eq: 20 in Hashash et al. (2001); 4
Fig. 1. Free-eld shear distortion of perforated (tunnel cavity is
empty) and non-perforated ground (tunnel cavity is lled), circular where Em is the modulus of elasticity of the medium, I is
shape (after Wang, 1993). the moment of inertia of the tunnel lining (per unit
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435441 437
Table 3
Calculated forces and stress using the analytical solutions
Wang Penzien % Dierence
Full slip No slip Full slip No slip Full slip No slip
Case 1
Racking ratio 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.55 0 1.2
Maximum thrust (Tmax) 62.94 1045.38 62.94 124.64 0 738.7
Maximum moment (Mmax) 188.81 188.81 188.81 186.95 0 1.0
Maximum shear (Vmax) 125.87 124.64
Case 2
Racking ratio 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 0 0.0
Tmax 46.83 813.59 46.83 93.60 0 769.2
Mmax 140.48 140.48 140.48 140.40 0 0.8
Vmax 46.83 93.60
Case 3
Racking ratio 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 0 0.0
Tmax 44.99 507.21 44.99 89.90 0 464.2
Mmax 134.97 134.97 134.97 134.85 0 41.5
Vmax 44.99 89.90 0
Note that the solutions of Case 1 are dierent from lue problem and is expected to give the correct solu-
the results calculated in Hashash et al. (2001). Minor er- tion. The analyses use assumptions identical to those
rors in the previous calculations (maximum applied of the analytical solution; (a) plane-strain condition,
strain should have been 0.00252 instead of 0.0021 and (b) ground and lining are linear elastic and mass-less
moment of inertia of the lining should be 0.00225 m4/m materials. Shear loading is applied at the upper ends
instead of 0.0023 m4/m) are corrected in this paper. of the boundaries to simulate pure shear condition.
In PLAXIS, only no-slip condition between the tunnel
lining and ground is simulated. The numerical analysis
3. Numerical analysis to evaluate analytical solutions solution is rst veried by analyzing non-perforated
and perforated ground. The computed ovaling defor-
A series of numerical analyses are performed using mations are nearly identical to those obtained from
the nite element code PLAXIS (PLAXIS-B.V., 2002) Eqs. (1) and (2).
to evaluate the analytical solutions for ovaling defor- The results of the numerical analyses of tunnel
mations of circular tunnels. The numerical analysis ground interaction for Cases 13 are presented and
uses rst principle for the solution of a boundary va- compared to analytical solutions in Table 4 and
Table 4
Comparison of analytical solution with numerical solution
Numerical Wang Numerical vs. Wang (%) Penzien Numerical vs. Penzien (%)
No-slip No-slip No-slip
Case 1
Racking ratio 2.18 2.58 15.5 2.55 14.5
Tmax 1050 1045.38 0.4 124.64 742.4
Mmax 158.87 188.81 15.9 186.95 15.0
Vmax 105.98 124.64 15.0
Case 2
Racking ratio 1.86 1.92 3.1 1.92 3.1
Tmax 820.86 813.59 0.9 93.60 777.0
Mmax 138.89 141.57 1.9 140.40 1.1
Vmax 95.28 93.60 1.8
Case 3
Racking ratio 1.82 1.84 1.1 1.84 1.1
Tmax 511.28 507.21 0.8 89.90 468.7
Mmax 133.43 134.97 1.1 134.85 1.1
Vmax 90.38 89.90 0.5
440 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435441
1400 200
Wang Wang
1200 Case 1
Case 1
(Analytical solutions)
(Analytical solutions)
Penzien Penzien
150
1000
Case 2 Case 3 Case 2
800
100
600 Case 3
1:1 Line 1:1 Line
max
max
400
50
M
T
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 50 100 150 200
T (Numerical solution) M (Numerical solution)
max max
3
Wang
Racking ratio (Analytical solutions)
2.5
Penzien Case 1
2
Case 3 Case 2
1.5
1 1:1 Line
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Racking ratio (Numerical solution)
Fig. 3. Comparison of calculated forces and racking ratios of numerical solution (x-axis) and analytical solutions (y-axis).
Fig. 3. The calculated maximum moments and racking condition of no-slip. This discrepancy is a source of
ratios agree well with both analytical solutions of confusion in the design of circular tunnel lining.
Case 2 and 3, but dier by approximately 15% for Two-dimensional nite element analyses are performed
Case 1. The maximum axial thrusts from numerical to validate which of the two analytical solutions pro-
analyses result in almost perfect match with Wangs vide the correct solution. Comparison with numerical
solutions, whereby the dierences are within 1% for analysis demonstrates that one of the solutions signif-
all three cases. However, the dierence between the icantly underestimates the thrust in the tunnel lining
numerical and Penziens solutions are signicant. The for the condition of no-slip and should not be used
dierence is higher than 700% for Cases 1 and 2, in for that condition.
which Penziens solutions highly underestimate the
thrust for all three cases. The comparisons clearly
demonstrate that the Wangs solution provides a real- References
istic estimate of the thrust in the tunnel linings for the
no-slip condition. It is recommended that the Penz- Burns, J.Q., Richard, R.M., 1964. Attenuation of stressses for buried
ienss solution not be used for no-slip condition. cylinders. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on SoilStructure
Interaction. University of Arizona, Tempe, AZ.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B., Yao, J.I.-C., 2001. Seismic
design and analysis of underground structure. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.
4. Summary and conclusions Technol. 16, 247293.
Hoeg, K., 1968. Stresses against underground structural cylinders. J.
Two available analytical solutions to compute in- Soil Mech. Found. Div. 94 (SM4).
duced forces and deformations due to ovaling defor- Peck, R.B., Hendron, A.J., Mohraz, B., 1972. State of the art in soft
mation of a circular tunnel are presented. The ground tunneling. In: The Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conference. American Institute of Mining, Metal-
solutions provide identical results for the condition lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 259286.
of full-slip between the tunnel lining and the ground Penzien, J., 2000. Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Int. J.
but dier in values of the calculated thrust for the Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 29, 683691.
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435441 441
Penzien, J., Wu, C.L., 1998. Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. Int. J. structure Interaction in Tunneling. UMTA-MA-06-0100-
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 27, 283300. 80-4, Urban Mass Transit Transportation Administration,
PLAXIS-B.V., 2002. PLAXIS: Finite element Package for Analysis of MA.
Geotechnical Structures, Delft, Netherland. Wang, J.N., 1993. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-the-art
Schwartz, C.W., Einstein, H.H., 1980. Improved Design of Approach. Parsons Brinckerho Quade & Douglas, Inc., New
Tunnel Supports, vol. 1. Simplied Analysis for Ground York, NY, Monograph 7.