Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
At present tunnels tend to be analyzed on the basis of 2D finite element computations , because 3D analyses are considered to be extremely time consuming. As a result, 3D analyses are presently the domain of researchers. Consulting engineers will only perform 3DFEM analyses when facing complex geometries, e.g. tunnel joints or connections to underground stations, but not for straight-ahead
tunneling. For judging possibilities, we distinguish between the 3 main focuses of tunnel analyses: tunnel heading stability, surface settlements and structural forces in linings. No doubt, tunnel heading stability requires a 3D FE-analysis, as otherwise one can not possibly capture the very significant arching in frictional ground. Here, it will be shown that safety factors can be computed relatively easily
by the so-called SSR-FEM. In contrast to stability analyses, settlement analyses tend to require very large 3D meshes, but a so-called
smart 3D analysis is proposed to overcome this difficulty. For the computation of structural forces in tunnel linings, a relatively simple
2D analysis is presented which matches the solution of a full 3D analysis reasonably well.
INTRODUCTION
p f = c N c + D N + q N q
(1)
C
N c = 5.86
D
0.42
and
N = 0.5 + C D .
(2)
Nc = cot ,
N =
1
0.05 ,
9 tan
Nq = 0 .
(3)
F =
tan real
c
= real
tan min
cmin
(4)
where cmin and tan min are minimum values as needed for equilibrium. These values are obtained by reducing the real shear
strength parameters stepwise down to failure in an elastoplastic
FE-analysis. The method originates from Zienkiewicz et al
(1973) and has been used most recently by Cai & Ugai (2003) for
anchored slopes. We have adopted this method for threedimensional stability analyses of tunnel headings (Vermeer et al,
2002). Fig. 3 shows results from a particular tunnel stability
problem. Considering homogeneous ground we have compared
this method to the face-pressure Eq. (1) to find excellent agreement.
The SSR-FEM is applicable both in shield and NATM tunnelling. For NATM tunnelling, this is well demonstrated by the
Rennsteig tunnel in Thuringia. With a length of 8 km it is the
longest motorway tunnel in Germany. The excavation of this
double-tube tunnel was done by sequential construction of a top
heading followed by bench and invert, as indicated in Fig. 4.
STEP-BY-STEP EXCAVATION
To get a better understanding of mesh requirements for a 3D settlement analysis we modelled a NATM tunnel. The sequential
excavations of top-heading and invert were analysed with the
elastoplastic Mohr-Coulomb (MC) model and results are shown
8
7
SMART 3D-ANALYSIS
2D-ANALYSIS
To overcome shortcomings of 2D analyses as well as time consuming 3D analyses we developed a smart way of 3D analysis.
Based on this new approach we use a full three dimensional
model but instead of excavating many slices we only compute
two excavations. From the last excavation increment we can extrapolate the entire three dimensional settlement trough. This
method has been well described by Mller et al (2003). The final
settlement value coming from this smart 3D calculation can now
be used to find appropriate unloading factors for a 2D calculation. For a tunnel with sequential excavations we obtained
= 0.3 for top heading and = 0.7 for invert (Bonnier et al,
2002) giving insight that unloading factors are also strongly dependent on the geometry of excavated tunnel sections.
Fig. 10. Observed and computed longitudinal settlement trough of Steinhaldenfeld tunnel
Fig. 11. Shadings of vertical displacements after 80m of stepwise excavation. The steady-state settlement of s=4.5cm is reached after an excavation of 35m.
Fig. 13: The step-by-step installation of the tunnel leads to realistic zigzagging bending moments in the ring direction of the lining
One has to note, that the two thinner lines above and below the
average lines in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 mark the maximums and
minimums of results due to a coarser 3D mesh. Indeed, computed
structural forces appear to depend significantly on the discretisation of lining elements. Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 show values of the
two different mesh coarsenesses in more detail. The finer mesh
was generated with three elements per lining segment and the
coarser mesh was generated with only one element per segment.
Each element thereby contains two Gaussian stress points. It is
important to note, that the increase of the maximum values due to
the finer mesh is about 40% for normal forces and 10% for bending moments. This large increase relates possibly to the higher
flexibility of the finer mesh and obviously very much to the fact,
that the Gaussian stress points from the finer mesh are positioned
closer to the edges of the segment. This means, that the stress
points are more close to the actual maximums and minimums in
the front and the rear part of the segment.
Fig. 14: Computed normal forces for coarse and fine mesh
Fig. 15: Computed bending moments for coarse and fine mesh
10 CONCLUSIONS
Examples of numerical applications for tunnel heading stability
and settlements have been shown. For analysing tunnel heading
stability, the shear strength reduction method appeared to be a
powerful tool to obtain both factors of safety and mechanisms of
failure. However, as numerical results need to be validated, it is
recommended to compare factors of safety from shear strength
recuction method as much as possible to findings from the face
pressure Eq. (1) with stability numbers as given by Eps. (2) and
(3).
For computing settlements it has been shown, that transverse settlement troughs can be modelled well with the load reduction
method, at least when using an appropriate constitutive soil
model. However appropriate values for unloading factors () remain uncertain. Therefore reliable settlements may only be modelled three dimensional. A proposed smart 3D analysis can overcome shortcomings of time consuming conventional 3D analyses.
Results of smart 3D analysis have been shown for different soil
models. Mohr-Coulumb Model gives too wide and too shallow
settlement troughs, but the Hardening Soil Model can improve a
lot, at least for overconsolidated soils.
Results for structural forces in tunnel linings from step-by-step
simulation have been shown. Both bending moments and normal
forces appear to have a zigzagging pattern within one lining segment. It has been shown, that relatively fine FE meshes have to
be used in order to compute exact maximums and minimums of
the observed zigzagging. Even though these results are believed
to be highly realistic the expense of such a full 3D analysis is difficult to justify at least for straight ahead tunnelling. Therefore
for the computation of structural forces in tunnel linings it is advocated to use a 2D analysis. Appropriate unloading factors may
come from the proposed Smart 3D Analysis.
REFERENCES
Bonnier, P.G., Mller, S.C. & Vermeer, P.A. 2002. Bending
Moments and Normal Forces in Tunnel linings. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference of Numerical Methods
in Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Vermeer, P.A. 2002. Plaxis 3D Manual.
Delft: A.A. Balkema.
Cai, F. & Ugai, K. 2003. Reinforcing mechanism of anchors in
slopes: a numerical comparison of results of LEM and FEM.
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics (27):
549 -564.
Mller, S.C., Vermeer, P.A. & Bonnier, P.G. 2003. A fast 3D
tunnel analysis. Paper presented at the Second MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics, Boston,
USA.
Panet, M. & Guenot, A. 1982. Analysis of convergence behind
the face of tunnel. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Proc.
Tunneling 82.
Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G. & Mller, S.C. 2002. On A Smart
Use of 3D-FEM in Tunneling. Paper presented at the 8th International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Rom, Italy.
Vermeer, P.A., Ruse, N. & Marcher, T. 2002. Tunnel heading
stability in drained ground. Felsbau: 8 18.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Humpheson, C. & Lewis, R.W. 1975.
Assosciated and nonassociated visco-plasticity in soil mechanics. Gotechnique (25) : 671 - 689.