TW Groeneweg - Shield Driven Tunnels in UHSC

T.W.
Groeneweg
T.W. Groeneweg
Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

Shield driven tunnels in
ultra high strength concrete
Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness
T.W. Groeneweg
January 2007
T.W. Groeneweg
January 2007
Graduation committee
Prof.dr.ir. J.C. Walraven
Dr.ir. C.B.M. Blom
Dr.ir. C.R. Braam
Dr.ir. O.M. Heeres
Ir. L.J.M. Houben
Preface
The research presented in this report is the graduation thesis to obtain my masters degree in Civil
Engineering at Delft University of Technology. Most work for this thesis was performed at the
engineering office of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam (Public Works Rotterdam).
The objective of the study is to investigate the technical feasibility of reduced lining thicknesses for
shield driven tunnels by the application of ultra high strength concrete.
The following members took part in the graduation committee:

Prof.dr.ir. J.C. Walraven Delft University of Technology
Dr.ir. C.B.M. Blom Gemeentewerken Rotterdam / Delft University of Technology
Dr.ir. C.R. Braam Delft University of Technology
Dr.ir. O.M. Heeres Gemeentewerken Rotterdam / Delft University of Technology
Ir. L.J.M. Houben Delft University of Technology
I would like to thank the engineering office of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam for giving me the
opportunity to do the research within their company. My gratitude goes to my colleagues at the
office. I am very thankful to Jos, Leon, Tom and Wouter for the nice daily lunch breaks we joined.
I would also like to thank my graduation committee for the useful conversations and enjoyable
atmosphere during the meetings.
Special thanks I would like to address to Kees Blom for his personal guidance and ever lasting
enthusiasm that encouraged me to keep on going and get the research to its current level.
Finally I thank my family and friends for their help and understanding.
Tom Groeneweg
January 2007
v
vi
Summary
From the history of shield driven tunnelling in soft soil is known that the lining thickness of such a
tunnel is of a fixed ratio compared to the tunnels diameter. Consequently the thickness equals 1/20
of the diameter. In case of very large tunnel diameters the weight of the tunnel segments increases
dramatically. As a result costs strongly increase due to problems in the logistics of construction (the
production process, transport to the building site and placing of the segments in the tunnel).
However, the wish to construct ever larger tunnel diameters remains. Because the possibility is then
created to construct multiple-lane motorways, as for instance motorway A13/16 in the north of
Rotterdam, in such a tunnel. This report investigated the feasibility of using new steel fibre
reinforced concretes, very high strength concrete C100/115 and ultra high strength concrete C180/210,
to reduce the lining thickness of shield driven tunnels with very large diameters.
Several mechanisms are known to cause damage in existing shield driven tunnels and therefore may
lead to failure. In this report the following four have been studied intensively:
1. Common ring behaviour of the tunnel embedded in soil (serviceability phase)
2. Ring behaviour after grout injection along the tunnel (construction phase)
3. Introduction of thrust jack forces from the tunnel boring machine into the segments
(construction phase)
4. Torsion in tunnel segments by deformations due to the grout injection, also known as the
trumpet effect (construction phase)
Each mechanism resulted in a boundary condition on the required lining thickness. It was shown
that the serviceability phase is never governing. However, the strength related conditions by the ring
behaviour due to grout injection and by the introduction of thrust jack forces dictate the required
lining thickness. In case of ordinary concrete these mechanisms result in the standard thickness of
1/20 D as well. Hence the construction phase should never be excluded in the design of a shield
driven tunnel.
Torsion by the trumpet effect quickly leads to the formation of cracks in tunnel segments. Very high
lining thicknesses are required to prevent this mechanism from happening. These thicknesses are
beyond the standard required thickness of 1/20 D. Consequently cracks during construction of a
tunnel with such a lining thickness are likely to occur. Indeed in practice these cracks have been
observed. Also for very and ultra high strength concrete cracks will occur if the lining thickness is
based on the mentioned strength related conditions. Temporary measures such as adjuster (trusses
placed in the ring to prevent in from deforming) or the application of tunnel boring machines with
longer shields help to reduce cracks by the trumpet effect.
Very thin tunnel linings can be used if conventional reinforcement bars are added to a tunnel lining
in ultra high strength concrete. The required amount of reinforcement strongly depends on the
tunnels depth projection. However at each considered depth a thickness of only 1/58 D is possible. A
reduction of governing behaviour for the grout injection can be realised by the use of additional mass
(for instance sand fill) in the tunnel tube during construction only. Such temporary measures during
the construction phase make thinner linings, even below 1/60 D, achievable.
vii
viii
Samenvatting
Uit de bouwpraktijk van geboorde tunnels in slappe grond is gebleken dat een vaste verhouding
tussen de tunnels diameter en vereiste liningdikte (wanddikte) bestaat. De dikte is hierdoor gelijk
aan 1/20-ste deel van de diameter. Bij zeer grote diameters worden de tunnelsegmenten zodoende
zeer zwaar. Dit levert problemen op in de logistiek (het productieproces, vervoer naar de bouwplaats
en de plaatsing van segmenten in de tunnel), die de totale kosten sterk opdrijven.
De wens blijft echter bestaan om boortunnels met zeer grote diameters te maken. Hierdoor zal het
mogelijk worden ook snelwegen, zoals de toekomstige snelweg A13/16 in het noorden van
Rotterdam, in zon type tunnel aan te leggen. In deze studie is onderzocht of de nieuwe staalvezel
versterkte betonsoorten, zeer hogesterkte beton C100/115 en ultra hogesterkte beton C180/210,
kunnen bijdragen aan een reductie van de liningdikte voor boortunnels met een zeer grote diameter.
Verschillende mechanismen kunnen bij een boortunnel tot schade en daardoor mogelijk tot
bezwijken, leiden. In de studie zijn de volgende vier uitvoerig onderzocht:
1. Algemene ringwerking van de tunnel ingebed in grond (gebruiksfase)
2. Ringwerking na injectie van grout rond de tunnel (bouwfase)
3. Introductie van vijzelkrachten vanuit de tunnelboormachine in de segmenten (bouwfase)
4. Torsie in segmenten door vervormingen ten gevolge van de groutinjectie, ook bekend als
het trompeteffect (bouwfase)
De genoemde mechanismen resulteerden elk in een grenswaarde van de vereiste liningdikte. Het is
gebleken dat de gebruiksfase nooit maatgevend wordt. De sterkte-eisen door de ringwerking bij de
groutinjectie en de introductie van vijzelkrachten dicteren de vereiste liningdikte. Deze zijn ook
verantwoordelijk gebleken voor de liningdikte uit de standaard vuistregel van 1/20 D voor
conventioneel beton. De bouwfase mag in het ontwerp van een boortunnel daarom nooit buiten
beschouwing worden gelaten.
Torsie door het trompeteffect leidt snel tot scheurvorming in de tunnelsegmenten. Zeer grote
liningdikten zijn vereist om dit mechanisme te voorkomen. Deze dikten liggen voor conventioneel
beton in ieder geval boven de standaarddikte van 1/20 D. Hierdoor zijn scheuren tijdens de bouw te
verwachten, wat in de praktijk ook inderdaad is waargenomen. Ook bij zeer en ultra hogesterkte
beton zijn scheuren te verwachten als de vereiste liningdikte wordt gebaseerd op de genoemde
sterkte-eisen. Tijdelijke maatregelen als het gebruik van een adjuster (vakwerk in de ring om
vervormen te voorkomen) of de toepassing van een tunnelboormachine met een langer schild
kunnen dit effect gedeeltelijk terugdringen.
Door toevoeging van conventionele wapening aan een tunnellining van ultra hoge sterkte beton is
het mogelijk gebleken zeer dunne liningdikten te verkrijgen. Het benodigde wapeningspercentage is
sterk afhankelijk van de diepteligging van de tunnel. Echter op alle onderzochte diepten is een dikte
van slechts 1/58 D mogelijk gebleken. Voor een vermindering van de maatgevendheid van de
groutinjectie kan een tijdelijke massa (bijvoorbeeld een zandlichaam) in de tunnel worden
aangebracht. Eventueel kan deze massa na de bouwfase probleemloos worden verwijderd. Door het
toepassen van zulke tijdelijke maatregelen tijdens de bouwfase kunnen zelfs liningdikten onder de
1/60 D worden gerealiseerd.
ix
x
Notations
Latin lower case

b = Half segmental width
c = Concrete cover reinforcement bars
fc = Design value concrete tensile strength
fs = Design value strength reinforcement steel
f'c = Design value concrete compressive strength
f'co = Permitted compressive stress due to centric perpendicular force introduction
h = Lining thickness
f = Fibre length
segm = Length tunnel segment in tangential direction
t = Height contact area longitudinal joint
r = Internal radius tunnel
u2 = Ovalisation deformation
x0 = Ground surface relative to mark NAP
xt = Top of tunnel relative to mark NAP
xu = Height concrete compressive zone
xw = Water table relative to mark NAP
Latin upper case

A = Cross-sectional area concrete
Bt = Width for torsion by trumpet effect
D = External diameter tunnel
Di = Internal diameter tunnel
E = Youngs modulus concrete
Eoed = Oedometer stiffness soil
Fjack = Thrust jack force
G = Shear modulus concrete
I = Moment of inertia
K0 = Neutral soil support coefficient
M = Bending moment
Mu = Ultimate resisting moment or bending moment capacity
N = Normal ring force
Nrep = Representative normal force on cross-section
R = External radius tunnel
Greek lower case

t = Reduction ratio for tangential soil stress
f = Partial safety factor steel fibres
max = Maximum concrete strain in longitudinal Janen joint
'c = Compressive yield strain concrete
'u = Ultimate compressive strain concrete
= Angle at tunnel perimeter
xi
= Poisson ratio (lateral contraction) concrete
sd = Specific gravity dry soil
sw = Specific gravity wet soil
h = Horizontal soil pressure
r = Radial soil pressure
t = Tangential soil pressure
v = Vertical soil pressure
w = Water pressure
'h = Effective horizontal grain pressure soil
'v = Effective vertical grain pressure soil
t = Shear stress due to torsion trumpet effect
= Rotation in longitudinal Janen joint
= Internal friction angle soil
Abbreviations
TBM Tunnel boring machine
UHSC Ultra high strength concrete
ULS Ultimate limit state
xii
Table of contents
Preface v
Summary vii
Notations xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction to shield driven tunnels 1
1.2 Problem description 2
1.3 Problem definition 2
1.4 Objective 2
1.5 Solution approach and arrangement of this report 2
Chapter 2 State of the art 5

2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Shield driven tunnels 5
2.2.1 Assembly process 5
2.2.2 Tunnel segments 6
2.2.3 Thrust jack configurations 6
2.3 Ultra high strength concrete 7
2.4 Case study: Tunnel motorway A13/16 9
Chapter 3 Ring behaviour embedded lining 13

3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Modelling of ring behaviour 14
3.2.1 Concrete tunnel segments 14
3.2.2 Longitudinal joints 15
3.2.3 Ring joints 18
3.2.4 Soil interaction 20
3.2.5 Validation of the model 24
3.3 Model for the case study 26
3.3.1 Thrust jack configuration 26
3.3.2 Number of tunnel segments per ring 26
3.3.3 Dimensions of the tunnel segments 27
3.3.4 Soil properties 27
3.4 Relation with the lining thickness 28
3.4.1 Maximum bending moment 29
3.4.2 Bending moment capacity of the lining 31
3.4.3 Retrieving the required lining thickness 38
3.5 Conclusions 40
Chapter 4 Grouting phase 43

4.1 Introduction 43
4.2 Modelling of the grout phase 45
4.2.1 Background of the uplift loading case model 45
xiii
4.2.2 Complete and incomplete grouting 48
4.3 Relation with the lining thickness 48
4.3.1 Maximum bending moment 48
4.3.2 Bending moment capacity 51
4.3.3 Retrieving the required lining thickness 51
4.4 Conclusions 52
Chapter 5 Additional structural mechanisms 55

5.1 Introduction 55
5.2 Introduction of thrust jack forces 55
5.2.1 Magnitude of the thrust jack force 57
5.2.2 Compressive stresses beneath the thrust jack plates 59
5.2.3 Tensile bursting stresses 62
5.3 Torsion in tunnel segments by the trumpet effect 66
5.3.1 Torsion capacity of the lining 66
5.3.2 Torsion displacements in the uplift loading case 70
5.4 Conclusions 72
Chapter 6 Evaluation lining thickness reduction 75

6.1 Introduction 75
6.2 Importance of the construction phase 75
6.2.1 Torsion by trumpet effect governing 77
6.2.2 Grouting phase and introduction of thrust jack forces governing 77
6.2.3 Ring behaviour of embedded tunnel 78
6.3 Improvement of behaviour steel fibre reinforced concrete in tunnels 79
6.3.1 Addition of steel bar reinforcement 79
6.3.2 Reduction of uplift force in grouting phase by ballast 81
6.3.3 Reduction of thrust jack force 83
6.4 Conclusions 83
Chapter 7 Conclusions and recommendations 85

References 87
Table of figures 89
Appendices 93
Appendix A Derivations 95
A.1 Janen joint 97
A.2 Transformation of coordinate systems 105
A.3 Uplift of embedded tunnel 107
Appendix B Ultimate resisting moment for steel fibre reinforced concrete 109
Appendix C Safety factors in shield driven tunnels 117
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction to shield driven tunnels

Construction of shield driven tunnels became popular in the Netherlands since the late 1990s. This
type of structure is thought to be a good way to cover up roads and railways. Hindrance at ground
surface for both humans and nature is reduced to a minimum level during construction and use of
the infrastructural connection.
Doubts about the actual feasibility of constructing such a tunnel in the soft Dutch soil with a high
water table avoided construction for a long time. Shield driven tunnels should be water tight and
during the construction process floating should be prevented. Abroad however more experience was
gained with the construction of these tunnels in likewise soft soil. In Germany, France and Japan for
instance several projects were completed successfully.
The first excavated tunnel in soft soil was finished in 1843. The tunnel connected both sides of the
river Thames in London and was designed by Marc Brunel and his son Isambard. Brunel used a
shield to keep the open area of the tunnel and the surrounding soil apart. Through the front of the
shield miners removed soil through small cavities. Behind the forward moving shield a brickwork
tunnel lining was erected.
Basically this method is still used in the construction of todays shield driven tunnels. However
miners have been replaced by a fully automated tunnel boring machine (TBM) and the brickwork has
been replaced by a prefabricated segmented concrete tunnel lining.
Foreign successes resulted in a pilot project in the Netherlands as well. In 1995 construction of the
first Dutch shield driven tunnel, the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, commenced. Subsequently nine
tunnels have been finished or are still under construction:
1. Second Heinenoord Tunnel
2. Westerschelde Tunnel
3. Sophia Rail Tunnel
4. Botlek Rail Tunnel
5. Tunnel Pannerdensch Canal
6. Green Heart Tunnel
7. North/South Metro Line Amsterdam
8. RandstadRail Staten Tunnel Rotterdam
9. Hubertus Tunnel The Hague
During and after construction of these tunnels several research projects studied the behaviour and
forces on the lining. As a result of the growing awareness of the mechanisms a shield driven tunnel is
subjected to, the diameter of the tunnel increased from 7,6 m for the Second Heinenoord Tunnel to
13,3 m for the Green Heart Tunnel.
1
1.2 Problem description
From the foreign history of shield driven tunnel construction in soft soil it is known that the required
thickness of concrete tunnel linings has a directly proportional relation with the tunnel diameter. The
thickness should be approximately 1/20 of the diameter (1/20 D) [4]. Obviously the circumference of
the tunnel also increases proportionally to the diameter. Hence their product, which represents the
amount of concrete needed to construct the lining, increases quadratic proportional to the tunnel
diameter (see Figure 1). For tunnels with large diameters this results in high costs as a consequence of
the material volume, heavy transport and the assembly process.
concrete volume V
The mechanism that leads to the required lining thickness has been
and still is an intensively discussed subject. In his dissertation [5] D D
Blom described several mechanisms which lead to observed cracks V ~ 2 - - = -D
2 20 20
(damage) in existing shield driven tunnels. By considering cracks as
an early warning system for failure caused by overloading, these
mechanisms might lead to failure at some point.
Despite the ongoing discussion the demand for larger tunnel
diameters remains. And preferably these larger diameters should be tunnel diameter D
achieved using equal or even smaller lining thicknesses than
1 | Volume of concrete increases
applied today to achieve an optimal economic design, hence save quadratic proportional to tunnel
costs. diameter
The application of new concrete materials such as very high strength concrete and ultra high strength
concrete might be a solution to this controversy. The use of these steel fibre reinforced concretes
already resulted in some very slender structures for bridges and roofs. Simultaneously in [16] it is
stated that by the addition of steel fibres to tunnel segments of ordinary strength concrete cost
savings can be achieved in two ways: either by reducing the thickness of the elements or by reducing
the amount of traditional reinforcement.
1.3 Problem definition

The amount of concrete in shield driven tunnel linings increases quadratic proportional to the tunnel
diameter. Consequently shield driven tunnels with large diameters are very costly. New steel fibre
reinforced concrete materials with significantly higher compressive strengths very high strength
and ultra high strength concrete might be a solution to reduce the linings thickness.
1.4 Objective
The objective of this study is to investigate the technical feasibility of reduced lining thicknesses for
shield driven tunnels by applying very high strength and ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced
concrete in stead of ordinary concrete with steel bar reinforcement.
The research will be applied on a shield driven tunnel for the future motorway A13/16 in the North
of Rotterdam.
1.5 Solution approach and arrangement of this report

The subjects of shield driven tunnels, ultra high strength concrete and the mentioned case study of
motorway A13/16 will be explained briefly in Chapter 2 to gain a better understanding of the issues
discussed in this report.
Several mechanisms which are assumed to possibly result in the required lining thickness of 1/20 D
have been presented by Blom [5]. In other studies as well the behaviour of these mechanisms has
been investigated:
2 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

Ring behaviour of a tunnel embedded in soil [17]
Uplift loading case: ring behaviour of a tunnel during construction in the semi-liquid grout
[5]
Introduction of thrust jack forces from the TBM into the tunnel lining [7, 12]
In this report the relations between those failure mechanisms and the required lining thickness will
be studied for three concrete strength classes:
1. Ordinary concrete with steel bar reinforcement C35/45
2. Very high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete C100/115
3. Ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete C180/210
Each mechanism will return a boundary condition of the required lining thickness for the case that
particular mechanism would be governing. For that purpose Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 discuss the
calculation methods and resulting lining thickness boundary conditions for the tunnels ring
behaviour when embedded in soil and in the uplift loading case respectively.
From literature [3] its known that shear forces are of minor influence in a circular shield driven
tunnel and will not turn out to be governing. Therefore the focus of these calculations will be on the
generated bending moments and normal ring forces.
Chapter 5 discusses the influence of two additional mechanisms from the tunnels construction
process. One of them is the already mentioned introduction of thrust jack forces, the other is the so-
called trumpet effect. The latter has been described in [5] and deals with observed cracking due to the
distortion of tunnel segments in the uplift loading case. Cracks resulting from this imposed
deformation do not result in a failure mechanism to occur, but only cause damage. Nevertheless this
mechanism will be studied for the concrete strength classes presented in order to investigate any
possible variations in the sensitiveness.
All boundary conditions regarding the lining thickness will be combined in Chapter 6. Then it will
become clear which mechanisms actually dominate the required lining thickness for the case studys
tunnel. The possible reduction of the lining thickness by the use of very and ultra high strength
concrete will then become visible as well. Since the governing mechanism is then known, alterations
to the tunnel design might reduce the lining thickness even more. Some examples are given in
Chapter 6.
Conclusions about the research presented in this report and recommendations for additional research
are described in Chapter 7.
Figure 2 schematically shows the structure of this report.
Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 3

C35/45
C100/115
C180/210
Layout
Concrete material Tunnel depth
tunnel design
Ring behaviour Uplift loading case Introduction Torsion in segments

(grouting) thrust jack forces (trumpet effect)
Lining capacities
Required lining Required lining Required lining Required lining

thickness thickness thickness thickness
Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Adaptation of design
Governing failure mechanism
to reduce effect of
Required lining thickness(es)
governing mechansim
Chapter 6
Economy
Tunnel design, required thickness,

depth projection and concrete material
2 | Visualisation of this reports structure

Chapter 2
State of the art
2.1 Introduction
From practice it is observed that despite all effort put in analyses and engineering of shield driven
tunnels, the lining thickness is still of a constant ratio to the tunnel diameter: 1/20 D. However the
wish remains to construct ever larger tunnel diameters with similar or even smaller lining
thicknesses compared to the ones used today. The newly developed ultra high strength concrete
might be a solution to this problem. Concrete strength classes in existing shield driven tunnels did
never exceed regular strengths like for instance C30/40. In section 2.3 the rise of the new type of
concrete will be clarified briefly.
The subject of shield driven tunnels will be discussed in section 2.2. The construction process of the
rings and the tunnel segments themselves are dealt with.
In the north of Rotterdam a new motorway is planned, the A13/16. This motorway has to reduce the
amount of traffic on the heavily loaded motorways in Rotterdams urban areas. Section 2.4 describes
the location and environment of the new motorway. The option to construct this motorway in a
shield driven tunnel is presented. This project is used as a case study in this report.
2.2 Shield driven tunnels

The lining thickness over diameter ratio for Dutch shield driven tunnels approaches the standard
ratio of 1/20 relatively close (Table 1). Most tunnels use a slightly smaller ratio of 1/22 (among others
the Westerschelde Tunnel and the Green Heart Tunnel), although in the Rotterdam RandstadRail
project the ratio is 1/17.
Table 1 | Lining thickness over diameter ratio for Dutch shield driven tunnels
Tunnel project Internal diameter [m] Lining thickness [m] Ratio

Second Heinenoord Tunnel 7,6 0,35 1/22
Westerschelde Tunnel 10,1 0,45 1/22
Sophia Rail Tunnel 8,65 0,40 1/22
Botlek Rail Tunnel 8,65 0,40 1/22
Tunnel Pannerdensch Canal 8,65 0,40 1/22
Green Heart Tunnel 13,3 0,60 1/22
North/South Metro Line Amsterdam 5,62 0,30 1/19
RandstadRail Tunnel Rotterdam 5,8 0,35 1/17
Hubertus Tunnel The Hague 9,4 0,45 1/21
2.2.1 Assembly process

During the construction of a shield driven tunnel the tunnel boring machine (TBM) digs through the
ground by excavating soil with a cutting wheel. The actual forward movement of the TBM is realised
by pushing off at the front of the already constructed tunnel lining using thrust jacks. These jacks are
usually combined in groups of two, which share the same so-called thrust jack plate to make contact
with the tunnel lining.
5
bolt pocket
handle hole
width
longitudinal joint
thickness
bearing pad
ring joint
length
longitudinal joint
3 | Dimensions and elements of the tunnel lining
As soon as the TBM cleared enough soil, a tunnel ring is assembled by several tunnel segments
within the protection of the TBMs shield. These segments are temporarily bolted together to the
previous ring in order to prevent shifting and dropping during the complete construction process.
Because the tunnel rings are assembled within the TBMs shield, the external diameter of this
machine is slightly larger than the tunnels diameter. Hence a tail void is created between the tunnel
lining and the surrounding soil due to the forward movement of the TBM. To prevent settlements of
the soil and to embed the tunnel the viscous material grout is injected. That material stiffens over
time.
2.2.2 Tunnel segments

The tunnel lining is assembled from rings each containing a certain number of tunnel segments. Most
Dutch shield driven tunnel have seven segments per ring. Rings in the Green Heart Tunnel have nine
segments. Adjacent rings are rotated by half a segmental length to create a masonry layout and
thereby avoid joints to be in line. Besides regular tunnel segments, a small trapezoid key stone is
present in each ring. This is the last segment placed in the assembly of the ring to close it. Its
trapezoid shape makes it easier to force it in.
In the Netherlands prefabricated concrete segments are commonly used. Only the Rotterdam
RandstadRail Tunnel includes some steel segments as well.
Tunnel segments in one and the same ring make contact in longitudinal joints (see Figure 3). In
adjacent rings segments are connected in the ring joint. Deformations occur due to loading of the
tunnel rings by the surrounding soil and water pressure. These deformations force the joints to
slightly rotate. Damage to the edges of the concrete segments in these rotating joints is prevented by
reducing the height of the contact area compared to the full segmental thickness, or lining thickness.
2.2.3 Thrust jack configurations

Ring jonts do not make contact along the full length of the segment; its reduced to some predefined
locations. The enormous axial normal forces which are introduced in the tunnel segments by the
TBMs thrust jack forces are passed to the other rings via these contact areas as well. Consequently
the location of contact areas is defined by the positions of the thrust jack plates on the tunnel
segments. Two thrust jack configurations are commonly used in Europe (see Figure 4):
1. German configuration (thrust jacks at both edges and in the middle of segments, hence at 0,
and 1 of the segmental length)
2. French configuration (thrust jacks at and of the segmental length)

a b
4 | Thrust jack configurations: a) German method; b) French method
In the German configuration thrust jacks at the edges of the segment are realised by one thrust jack
plate over the longitudinal joint of two adjacent segments. The total number of thrust jack plates per
ring is therefore similar for both configurations.
A significant disadvantage of the German configuration is the appearance of large tensile forces by
the introduction of thrust jack forces at the edge of the segment (see Chapter 5). Because of the
presence of three contact areas in the ring joint, this configuration is vulnerable to placing errors in
already assembled rings as well. If one out of three contact areas is not able to fully interact with the
other ring, the huge thrust jack force at the other front face of the segment has to be diverted to the
other remaining supports. The result is the creation of large internal tensile forces. In concrete this
implies the formation of cracks, hence damage (see Figure 5).
If the axial contact pressure in the ring joints is present, the joints are able to interact in radial and
tangential direction as well. The distribution of contact areas along the segmental length of the
German configuration, especially the area in the middle, then introduces significant additional peak
bending moments in the tunnel lining.
All mentioned problems are significantly reduced or diminished by reducing the number of contact
areas per tunnel segment to two and by locating these areas as far from the longitudinal joints in
adjacent rings as possible. These properties have been realised in the French thrust jack
configuration. From the finished Dutch shield driven tunnels only the Green Heart Tunnel made use
of this configuration.
a b
5 | Uneven support of tunnel segments for: a) German configuration; b) French configuration
2.3 Ultra high strength concrete

Almost simultaneously with the appearance of the first shield driven tunnels in the Netherlands, a
new material was introduced in the world of concrete, namely ultra high strength concrete. In
Canadian Quebec the Sherbrooke Footbridge was constructed in 1997. This extraordinary bridge has

been constructed from concrete with a cylindrical compressive strength of 200 MPa. Compared to the
highest strength achievable in those days, 90 MPa, the new material was a huge leap forward.
However already in 1981 Danish Hans Henrik Bache described the possibility to make concrete with
an ultra high compressive strength by using very fine particles in the mixture [19]. Despite the high
compressive strength, the material behaved very ductile by the addition of large amounts of steel bar
reinforcement. This material is now known as CRC (Compact Reinforced Composite), a product of
the Danish company Aalborg Portland.
In the materials developed from the late 1990s on the reinforcement bars were replaced by steel
fibres in the concrete mixture itself. Companies like the French Lafarge, with the product Ductal, and
the likewise French company Eiffage, with its product BSI-Cracem (Bton Spcial Industriel),
introduced their own ultra high strength concrete (UHSC) or ultra high performance concrete
(UHPC) on the market. Table 2 shows an enumeration of concrete strength classifications.
Table 2 | Classification of concrete strength classes [19]
Term Range strength classes

Ordinary strength concrete up to C53/65
High strength concrete C53/65 to C90/105
Very high strength concrete C90/105 to C150/170
Ultra high strength concrete C150/170 to C200/230
Super high strength concrete1) from C200/230
1)
Level not included in source [19]
By now a number of projects have been constructed in the new steel fibre reinforced concretes. These
are mainly bridges and roofs in both France and Japan. All were accomplished with very slender
structures. Figure 7 shows the Bridge of Peace in South Korea.
The creation of ultra high strength concrete is possible by making some changes in the design of the
concrete mixture [10, 6]:
Reduce the water-cement ratio
Increase the packing density by optimising the grading curve (see Figure 6)
Improve the homogeneity by using small sized particles only
Add steel fibres to the mixture to resist minor internal tensile bursting stresses and to bridge
minor cracks
C27/35 C65/85 C130/150 C170/200 B180/210 (BSI)

1cm
6 | Concrete materials: significant increase of density and homogeneity for BSI
Both types of ultra high strength concrete, with steel bar or steel fibre reinforcement, are extremely
dense. This results in outstanding durability properties. Ductal for instance claims a carbonation
depth of only 2 mm in 500 years [9].
For the construction of road traffic bridges in ultra high strength concrete in the French town of
Bourg-Ls-Valence design recommendations for the material used were required. As a result the
French organisations AFGC (Association Franaise Gnie Civil) and Setra (Service dtudes

7 | Pedestrian Bridge of Peace in Seonyu, South Korea
techniques des routes et autoroutes) published a document with some interim recommendations in
2002. At the moment of publication of this report the French recommendations were the only
recommendations present; hence calculations in this study were based on their findings.
Prices of ultra high strength concrete are yet very high. A cubic metre of BSI-Cracem (C180/210)
costs approximately 400-800 euro. The same amount of ordinary concrete costs only 150-200 euro. If
the production of the material increases because more engineers and contractors dare to apply it in
their structures, the costs are supposed to show a significant decrease.
2.4 Case study: Tunnel motorway A13/16

In the entire Randstad area in the Netherlands coastal region severe traffic jams on motorways occur
daily. An obvious bottleneck is the low-capacity junction Kleinpolderplein in the north of Rotterdam.
This junction causes long jams on the urban motorways A13, A20 and the connected A16 (see Figure
8). A significant amount of traffic however only uses the A20 and the junction to get from the A13 to
the A16 and vice versa.
Therefore the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat (Ministry of Transport and Water) appealed for the design of a
new motorway to interconnect both motorways A13 and A16 [14]. This motorway A13/16 will
significantly decrease the amount of traffic on the existing urban motorways A20 and A13 and the
junction Kleinpolderplein.
The route Rijkswaterstaat suggests runs close to (future) housing an existing and future green zones,
among which the picturesque river Rotte and park Lage Bergsche Bos. Construction of the motorway
in a shield driven tunnel appears to be a sympathetic solution to diminish hindrance during its
construction and use in those areas.

A4
Prins Clausplein
Zoetermeer
Rijswijk A12
Nootdorp
Ypenburg
Pijnacker
Delft Bleiswijk
Delfgauw
Berkel en N209
Rodenrijs
A4
Bergschenhoek
N470
A13
Hoge Bergsche
Bos
Lage
Bergsche Bos
A13/16
Rotterdam
Airport Rotte
Terbregseplein
A20
Overschie
Kleinpolderplein
Kethelplein
Schiedam
Rotterdam
Vlaardingen
A16
Nieuwe Maas
A4
8 | Surroundings of future motorway A13/16 in the north of Rotterdam 2006, TW GROENEWEG
Urban area (future) Motorway (future) N

Industrial area (future) Main road
Green zone (future) Local road
1 km
Water Railway (industrial)
Tunnel diameter
The maximum allowed speed at motorways connecting to the new road A13/16 is restricted to 80
km/h nowadays. By allowing this speed in the tunnel as well, a serious reduction of the required lane
widths is possible (holds for motorways with a maximum speed of 90 km/h and below according to
Dutch guidelines for tunnel design SATO [13]). In the Netherlands multi-lane motorways have not
been constructed in shield driven tunnel yet. The width required for all lanes in one direction would
lead to very large tunnel diameters. The same might hold for this motorway. Rijkswaterstaat
demands two lanes in each direction plus a safety strip. The width of the safety strip should be
sufficient to construct a third lane in future.
The required free cross-sectional surface for the motorway is a rectangle with a width significantly
larger than its height. Hence fitting of this rectangle in a circular tunnel would result in huge useless
free areas above and below the motorway (Figure 9a). By stacking both traffic directions on top of
each other, the construction of a second tunnel is omitted (Figure 9b) and less free area is present. A
diameter increase of only approximately 10 % is sufficient. Now the required internal diameter for
the tunnel of motorway A13/16 is 16,7 m. Compared to the present world record diameter for shield
driven tunnels in soft soil 13,3 m of the Green Heart Tunnel this implies a very significant
increase. For now this increase of 25 % is expected to be too large for the goal of this study.
More measures are therefore required to reduce the height and most of all the width of the traffic
lanes. The most effective solution is to ban trucks and lorries from the tunnel by permitting a
maximum vehicle height of 2,6 m only. Trucks, being a small part of the total traffic only, should take
the traditional route over the junction Kleinpolderplein. The internal diameter of the tunnel is now
reduced by 1,8 m to 14,9 m (see Figure 10).
Plans for a new motorway A6/9 near Amsterdam (eliminated by politics now) included a similar
tunnel with similar diameter as well [15].
9 | Fitting two directions in one tunnel tube. a) Two tunnels with large useless free areas; b) One tunnel with less free space
Alignement
Rijkswaterstaat already suggested two routes for the new motorway. Because no hindrance of a
motorway in a shield driven tunnel is recorded on the ground surface, the shortest route can be
applied. Every possible route forces the motorway to cross the high speed railway line HSL-Zuid. At
the crossing location the railway is situated at a slab founded on a significant number of poles. These
piles require an underground crossing at a depth of at least -24,00 m + NAP (soil overburden of 19,26
m).
The research project of this report does not deal with the complete design of the tunnel. The effects of
the application of new concrete materials on the reduction of the lining thickness of this tunnel are
investigated. A vertical alignment of the motorway will be assumed only. For now its supposed to
be horizontal at a depth of -24,00 m + NAP. Only at the ends the tunnel will reach smaller
overburdens.
At the engineering office of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam soil data of the tunnels route was available.
It shows that the tunnel is fully embedded in packed sand, the so-called Layer of Kedichem. Figure 11
shows both the alignment and soil conditions of the tunnel.

traffic signs and lighting
extra height for safety
escape route
BD 35 JR
safety strip RW 13 16
T
ranspo
rte
r
IG WR 19 VT UD 06
safety strip
10 | Cross-section of tunnel for motorway A13/16 with personal cars only (scale 1:150)
A13 1 km N470 HSL N209 Rotte A16
NAP 0 m
-10 m
-20 m
shaft
shaft
Peat -30 m
shield driven tunnel
Klay
Silt -40 m
Sand
-50 m
Unknown
11 | Schematic representation alignment of the tunnel for motorway A13/16

Chapter 3
Ring behaviour embedded lining
3.1 Introduction
Reaction forces and deflections in the serviceability stage of a shield driven tunnel are described by
calculations on ring behaviour for the embedded lining. Calculations are made on the cross-sectional
face of the tunnel perpendicular to its axis.
Soil surrounding the tunnel has certain stiffness, just like the concrete lining itself. Stiff parts attract
bending moments. Consequently the tunnel and soil will cooperate to bear all loads. These loads
result from the soils mass and ground water pressure surrounding the shield driven tunnel.
In the introduction of this report it was stated that shear forces in circular tunnels are not governing
[3]. On the other hand the bending moments, in combination with a normal force in ring direction,
are governing. Hence the scope of calculations in this chapter will be on those reaction forces.
In 1964 Schulze and Duddeck described ring behaviour of shield driven tunnels by a collection of
graphs. By means of those graphs bending moments and normal forces could be retrieved for various
depth projections of the tunnel and various ratios between the tunnel stiffness and soil stiffness.
When computers developed and the time needed for more comprehensive calculations decreased,
the creation of models specifically designed for one tunnelling project grew popular. The main
difference in the models created by now is the modelling of the soil. In finite element models soil is
normally introduced as a continuum around the tunnel lining. In more uncomplicated framework
analyses the soil has been reduced to springs and loads representing the supporting and loading
effects of the soil on the tunnel lining. This model focuses on the tunnel structure only; the
developments of deformations and stresses in the surrounding soil are omitted. Finite element
models however are able to return these soil results as well.
Modelling of the tunnel lining itself can be realized by reducing the ring to a homogenous ring beam,
a segmented single ring beam or a segmented double ring beam. The homogeneous ring beam is
most simplified, but ignores peak moments which develop in the lining due to the presence of
longitudinal joints and ring joints. The segmented single ring beam model takes care of the
longitudinal joints as well. This model is valid if no axial normal forces are present; hence no
interaction between rings occurs via the contact areas in the ring joints. The segmented double ring
beam model introduces the effects of both longitudinal and interacting ring joints in the calculation.
All models can be created in a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional environment. A 3-dimensional model
however is a waste if no serious changes in loading, support or geometry occur in the third
dimension, the tunnels axial direction. The only significant defect in this direction is the ring joint.
Such a joint however can be modelled in a 2-dimensional environment as well, which is then referred
to as 2-dimensional as well. Hence a 2-dimensional environment is sufficient.
In section 3.2 the creation and validation of a segmented double ring beam model with soil
interaction represented by springs and loads will be described. This type of model is a reliable
representation of reality [5] focussing on the tunnel structure only with relatively short calculation
13
times. Therefore this model is widely used in practise and will be used in this research project as
well.
Section 3.3 abstracts parameters from the case studys tunnel for use in the yet created model.
In order to reduce the lining thickness of a shield driven tunnel, knowledge about the relation
between the thickness and safety level of the tunnel is required. Section 3.4 concludes this relation for
the case study tunnel of this research project, motorway A13/16. It will turn out that the depth
projection of the tunnel has a serious influence on the safety level. Therefore this chapter will not
focus on the depth projection as suggested in Chapter 2 only, but includes a wider range.
Comparison of the actual safety level with a required safety level generates the possibility to abstract
a boundary condition on the required minimum lining thickness. In section 3.4 the requirement by
the ring behaviour of the embedded tunnel lining will be concluded for the considered concrete
materials, namely C35/45, C100/115 and C180/210.
Conclusions concerning this chapter will be described in section 3.5.
3.2 Modelling of ring behaviour

A segmented double ring beam model with soil interaction represented by springs and loads on the
tunnel will be created and validated in this section. Thanks to the relative simplicity of this type of
model, a framework model, only a few choices and calculations are required prior to the actual
framework analysis. Contact behaviour in the longitudinal joints and ring joints for instance will be
reduced to springs, which are more common and require much less calculation time.
For the linings ring joint, interaction between two adjoining rings is included in this model. In reality
both rings are situated on a different level in the third dimension (the tunnels axis). The framework
model however is 2-dimensional, which saves a lot of calculation time. Therefore the modelled rings
are located at the same spot, but are connected by springs in the original contact areas only to imitate
the third dimension. Hence it is called a 2-dimensional model.
Modelling of the interaction forces in one ring joint requires that the influence zone of this particular
joint is included in the model only. This implies that only half the width (dimension in axial
direction) of each tunnel segment is used. If this fact is considered in all calculations and checks of
the embedded ring behaviour, no difficulties occur.
Calculations in this study will not include the key stone. The narrow width of this segment results in
a small decrease of the length (tangential dimension) of adjoining segments. By excluding the stone
their width is normal again and their common longitudinal joint is positioned at the centre of the
actual key stone. The validation of the model will prove that no significant changes occur due to the
key stone.
Section 3.2.1 describes the reduction of the concrete tunnel segments to elements for the framework
analysis. Modelling of the longitudinal joints and ring joints is described in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
respectively. In section 3.2.4 the modelling of soil is taken into consideration, which will be
represented by springs and loads as described before. The final model will be validated by
comparing its resulting bending moments to the ones of two other studies in section 3.2.5.
The software application ANSYS 6.1 is used to process the framework analysis from this study.
3.2.1 Concrete tunnel segments

In the cross-sectional plane of a ring tunnel segments are a kind of beams. The span of these beams
is projected in between the longitudinal joints at both ends. In a framework model these beams are
represented by so-called beam elements. If the concrete material is assumed to behave linear elastic,
elastic straight beam elements are applied in the gravity point of the beams (for rectangular tunnel
segments in the centre point). For these framework elements are straight by definition, multiple

elements connected in nodes are necessary to simulate the curved shape of the tunnel segments. This
results in a more accurate image of the forces and deflections. First of all forces and deflections are
defined at the ends of beam elements or at the nodes only, so local peaks in the bending moment
development are better observed at a higher accuracy. Second the representation of the hydrostatic
water pressure and forces from the soil (defined at the nodes) is improved in a high accuracy model.
A certain number of nodes were needed any way. Connections between adjoining rings, representing
the ring interaction, can be attached to nodes only. For the French thrust jack configuration now at
least two nodes are required in the segments span. By adding the nodes at the ends of the segment
(in the longitudinal joints) to this number, at least four nodes (hence three beam elements) have to be
used. To keep the length of each beam element equal (for output handling reasons), another node is
added to the middle of the segment. So at the end at least five nodes and four beam elements make a
tunnel segment with the French thrust jack configuration. More detailed output data is achieved by
multiplying this required number of elements by any integer. In this study 12 beam elements will be
used for each tunnel segment.
In ANSYS five properties have to be defined for each elastic beam element:
1. Cross-sectional surface in axial-radial plane A = bh
2. Moment of inertia I = 121 bh 3
3. Height h
4. Youngs modulus E
5. Poisson ratio
Where b is half the original width of the tunnel segment.
One probably noticed that no property has been assigned to the segmental mass. It will not be added
as a loading of the structure either. Because the weight of the tunnel lining is very small compared to
the mass of the excavated soil, the high pressure on the tunnels external surface will hardly be
influenced by the tunnels own mass. Consequently this load will not be introduced to the
calculation.
The circular shape of shield driven tunnels generates an ideal opportunity to use a cylindrical system
of coordinates. In this system each node of the beam elements is defined by a fixed radius and an
angle. Of course this assumes a fully circular tunnel ring prior to loading.
3.2.2 Longitudinal joints

Longitudinal joints are under pressure due to a tangential normal force in the lining, the normal ring
force. This normal force prevents opening of the joint by applied bending moments to some extent. If
however the rotation reached a certain relatively high level, opening will occur at one side of the
joint. As a result the stiffness of the joint is reduced.
Janen developed an often applied method to include the non-linear rotational behaviour of the
longitudinal joint in a rotational spring. This non-linear spring connects the end nodes of two
adjacent tunnel segments in the same ring.
The so-called Janen joint assumes that the contact area can be represented by a concrete beam with a
depth equal to the joint contact areas width (segmental width) and its height and width equalling
the joints contact height. Opening of the joint is included by the fact that the concrete beam is unable
to bear any tensile stresses at all. Now it is possible to find a relation between the rotation in, bending
moment in and normal force on the beam. Next this relation is translated into a spring stiffness of the
rotational spring.
At an increasing rotation in the joint or beam, three stages are distinguished:

2N
1. Closed joint (rotation )
Ebl t
2N
2. Opened joint (rotation > and maximum strain in joint max ' c )
Ebl t
3. Opened joint with plastic concrete behaviour (maximum strain ' c < max ' u )
The enumeration also shows the boundary conditions for the rotation or maximum strain in the joint
to be valid for that particular stage. The parameters represent:
b = Width contact area longitudinal joint (segmental width)
E = Youngs modulus
lt = Height contact area longitudinal joint
= Rotation
'c = Compressive yield strain of concrete
'u = Ultimate compressive strain of concrete
In Appendix A.1 the equations for the Janen rotational spring stiffness kr have been derived. Here
the final equations are given for all three stages:
bl 2 E
1. Closed joint: k r = t
12
2
2M
9 bl t EM 1
Nl
2. Opened joint: k r = t
8N
6( 2Mf 'c b + l t Nf'c b + N 2 )ME
3. Opened joint plastic concrete behaviour: k r 1, 2 =
(6N )
21N 2 + 30Mf 'c b 15Nl t f'c b l t f'c2 b
Where:
M = Bending moment in the joint
f'c = Design value compressive strength concrete
In most studies only the first two stages (opened joint and non-plastic closed joint) are being used.
Plastic behaviour in the joints implies very large rotations and very large deflections, which is
undesirable in normal day use and in general will not and may not take place. Consequently only the
first and second stages will be applied in the model of this study as well.
The equation for the spring stiffness of an opened joint shows that the stiffness is related to the
rotation , bending moment M and normal force N. The software application ANSYS however only
knows a non-linear spring with a custom relation between the rotation and bending moment,
without the normal force. However no problems arise, for the normal ring force varies only little
along the rings circumference and is relatively easy to predict in advance.
For a ring under uniform radial pressure p (see Figure 12) the normal ring force is retrieved as
follows.
The vertical component of the pressure at an angle is given by:
pv = p cos
The force due to this vertical pressure at a section with an angular span of d holds:
fv = pv Rd
Where:
R = External radius

Now the total vertical force at a quarter of the ring is given by:
/2 /2
Fv = b 0 fv = b 0 pv Rd = bpR
Equilibrium of vertical forces at this single part holds:
N v = 0 N = Fv
Hence the normal ring force N is:
N = bpR (1)

d
R
N N
12 | Uniform pressure leading to normal ring force tunnel
If the average radial pressure on the tunnel is used for pressure p in equation (1), a rather accurate
approximation of the normal ring force in the Janen joint returns. The resulting non-linear relation
between the rotation and bending moment is assigned to all non-linear rotational springs at the
locations of the longitudinal joints in the model. An example of this relation is shown in Figure 13.
moment M [kNm]
700 Mmax
600
500
400 joint opened

300 b = 1000 mm
t = 350 mm
200 E'c = 33.500 MPa
N = 3848 kN
100 joint closed
rotation [mrad]
0
0 20 40 60 80
13 | Relation between rotations and bending moments in a Janen joint
Obviously the Janen method only focuses on the transfer of bending moments in the joint. Normal
forces and shear forces are transmitted in a far more straightforward way, namely by linear
translation springs. Provided that the joint is subjected to a pure compressive normal force the joint
will not be noticed at all, the normal force is simply transferred from one tunnel segment to the other.
The joint itself does not elongate by the compressive force. A spring in tangential direction should
therefore prevent such elongation. In other words: a spring stiffness of infinity should be assigned to
the spring. The software application however requires an actual value. A parameter study showed
that a value of 1010 kN/m results in minor insignificant values only; hence this value was selected.
So why not use a beam element when an infinite stiff behaviour in the axial direction is required? The
beam element has a property to transmit bending moments, shear forces and normal forces by
definition from one end to the other. For this joint however only normal forces and shear forces
(frictional forces) should be transferred, bending moments are taken care of by the Janen joint.
Hence a beam element is unsuitable.

The behaviour of frictional shear forces in the longitudinal joint is partly similar to the one of normal
forces. If a shear force is directed from one concrete surface to another, it is assumed that no
deformations occur until the ultimate capacity is reached and the connection fails at once. Then an
instant infinite deflection takes place. In the model of the longitudinal joint this property is
represented by a linear translation spring with a stiffness of 1010 kN/m in radial direction. After the
framework analysis it should be verified whether the friction force capacity was exceeded or not.
At the end three springs are necessary to model a longitudinal joint between two tunnel segments: a
rotation spring with a non-linear spring stiffness according to Janens method and linear translation
springs in radial and tangential direction with high spring stiffnesses.
3.2.3 Ring joints

Contact and thereby exchange of forces in the ring joint occurs in the so-called bearing pads. In shield
driven tunnels with the German thrust jack configuration dowels and sockets have been applied now
and then. Originally these dowels were added to make positioning of the tunnel segments during
assembly easy. Easy positioning requires some clearance between the dowel and socket for
movement. In the initial situation prior to loading the dowel and socket are not in contact. Only at
relatively large deformations of the tunnel ring contact might occur. Again this is something thats
undesired due to the large deformations and possible peak moments by the new ring interaction
areas.
No dowels and sockets are applied in the French thrust jack configuration (which will be applied on
the tunnel for motorway A13/16 in the following section), thus this problem will not occur.
Interaction in de ring joints is restricted to the bearing pads only, at the same position along the
segmental length as where the thrust jack plates are located.
In most Dutch shield driven tunnels so-called packing materials have been used at the contact area of
the ring joint. For instance plywood planks are frequently used. The idea behind this phenomenon is
that if the ring joint rotates the plywood plank will deform unevenly, but remains in contact with
both concrete tunnel segments. Now the complete contact surface would still be available for the
transfer of frictional forces in the ring joint. The thickness of plywood planks automatically defines
the location of the ring contact areas.
The Green Heart Tunnel showed that packing materials could easily be left out of the design as well.
Its joints made use of pure concrete to concrete contact only. The bearing pads were defined by a few
millimetres of additional concrete and behaved just as well.
The force responsible for interaction between two adjoining rings is a friction force in radial
direction. Just like the frictional shear forces in longitudinal joints, this transfer is modelled by use of
a linear translation spring in radial direction again. The stiffness of this spring however does not
equal infinity.
Springs in ring joints represent both the stiffness of the concrete to concrete contact behaviour and
the stiffness of the tunnel segments bordering the joint. If one returns to the original modelling of the
concrete tunnel segments themselves the reason becomes clear: the beam elements representing the
tunnel segments are located at the centre lines of the segments. Even though only half the segmental
width is taken into account, the elements remain at the original centre lines. Hence at the cutting
faces of the narrowed segments now (see Figure 14). Recollection of the skipped third dimension
(tunnel axis) shows that there actually is a full segmental width in between the beam elements of
both adjacent rings. Over that width deflections might occur by interaction forces in the ring joint.
This will additionally define the total ring joint spring stiffness.

14 | Beam elements (and nodes) in the centre line of a tunnel segment
The total spring stiffnes of the ring joint is determined as follows:

1 1 1 1 1
= + = + k rj = k rj ,segment
k rj k rj, segment k rj, contact k rj,segment
Where:
krj = Total spring stiffness of the ring joint
krj,segment = Spring stiffness by the segments
krj,contact = Spring stiffness by the contact area (supposed to equal infinity ())
By considering the cross-sectional surface of the half tunnel segment in a vertical plane along the
tunnels axis, a spring stiffness may be assigned to that particular part of the structure. It is assumed
that the magnitude of the axial thrust jack force (still present in the ring joint contact areas) is of such
extend that no rotation occurs in the joint. By forcing one of the sides upward a deflection u occurs
due to a vertical force F. A linear bending moment distribution results, with its maximum values at
both ends. Figure 15 displays this simple mechanism.
The symmetric bending moment distribution allows reducing the problem to a beam clamped at one
end and loaded by a force F at the other free end. The maximum bending moment simply holds:
b
M=F
2
The rotation of the loaded endpoint (in the ring joint in the original problem) is then given by:
M( b / 2) Fb 2
= =
2EI 8EI
Where:
I = Moment of inertia in the radial-tangential plane
u
u/2
b/2
15 | Determination of spring stiffness for ring joints

The deflection in the reduced problem is u/2. A rule of thumb provides:
u 2 Fb 3
= 3 b / 2 =
2 24EI
Then the stiffness of a spring representing this phenomenon is defined as:

F 24EI
k rj = =
u/2 b3
One ring interaction location is handled. Therefore the moment of inertia for the French thrust jack
configuration is defined by half the segmental length in tangential direction. Hence:
I = 121 l segm / 2 h 3
Where:
b = Full segmental width
h = Lining thickness
Di = Internal tunnel diameter
( Di + h)
segm = Segmental length =
n segm
nsegm = Number of segments per ring
The final spring stiffness for one ring connection holds:

24EI Eh 3 ( Di + h )
k rj = =
b3 n segm b 3
For a tunnel diameter of this research projects case study, values of approximately 106 to 107 kN/m
are found depending on the lining thickness and concrete Youngs modulus. In literature a value of
108 kN/m is recommended [11]. Unfortunately no explanation has been given about the background
of this value. A spring stiffness of 107 kN/m is close to both the calculated values and the value from
literature. Therefore this compromising spring stiffness will be used in the model.
3.2.4 Soil interaction

The mass of the soil and the hydrostatic pressure by ground-water generate a load on the tunnel. The
removal of soil at the location of the present tunnel causes this load to work on the rings in the tunnel
lining. Nevertheless the soil itself has a certain stiffness as well, which therefore contributes to
supporting its own loads.
During the description of the case study tunnel for motorway A13/16 it came forward that this shield
driven tunnel is primarily embedded in compacted sand. Since this study does not focus on a
detailed design of the tunnel, but tries to find an answer on the question whether the lining thickness
of shield driven tunnels may be reduced by applying ultra high strength concrete, a simplified soil
continuum is used now. Subsequently the complete soil continuum is assumed to consist of packed
sand only. This only affects the loads on the tunnel, not the supporting function as will become clear
from the following sections.
Loads from the soil

In a uniform soil continuum vertical pressure by the soil mass and hydrostatic water pressure
develop gradually over the depth. Above the ground-water table only a grain pressure occurs,
beneath the total pressure consists of the hydrostatic water pressure and effective grain pressure (see
Figure 16).

x0
sd
xw
v,wl
sw
xtop
h
w()
v()
'v()
w v
16 | Vertical stresses in uniform soil continuum along a tunnel
The vertical pressure at the ground-water table v,wt is given by:

v , wt = (x 0 x w )sd (2)
Where:
x0 = Soil surface relative to mark NAP
xw = Water level relative to mark NAP
sd = Specific gravity of dry soil
The total soil pressure at an angle of the tunnels external surface is:
( )
v () = v , wt + x w x top + h sw (3)
Where:
xtop = Top of tunnel relative to mark NAP
sw = Specific gravity of saturated soil
Parameter h is the vertical distance between the tunnel top and the point at an angle along the
tunnels external circumference. Its defined by:
h = (1 cos )D / 2 (4)
Where:
D = External diameter of the tunnel
The hydrostatic water pressure and the effective vertical grain pressure combined equal the total
vertical pressure. Hence for the effective vertical grain pressure it holds:
' v () = v () w ( ) (5)
Where w() is the hydrostatic water pressure at the point with an angle , reading:
(
w () = x w x top + h w ) (6)
Substitution of equations (2), (3), (4) and (6) in (5) defines the effective vertical grain pressure as:
( )
'v = (x 0 x w )sd + x w x top + (1 cos )D / 2 (sw w )
All vertical pressures simply result from the soil continuum in Figure 16. Water pressure is omni
directional, so its horizontal pressure and vertical pressure are equal at any point. Soil pressures do

not know this property. This is visible by the fact that soil is stable under a certain gravity slope. The
angle of this slope is the internal friction angle and is responsible for the fact that the horizontal
effective grain pressure is defined by:
' h () = K 0 ' v () (7)
Where neutral soil support coefficient K0 is smaller than 1 for soil and is related to the internal
friction angle by:
K 0 = 1 sin
Just like the total vertical pressure, the total horizontal pressure combines effective horizontal grain
pressure and the hydrostatic water pressure:
h () = ' h ( ) + w () (8)
Using these equations its relatively easy to determine the total vertical soil pressure at the top of the
tunnel. This pressure results from the soil and water masses on top of the tunnel. Implying that the
vertical pressure at the bottom of the tunnel should equal the pressure at the top, for the tunnel hole
does not introduce any additional mass. However a point at the same depth just next to the tunnel is
loaded by the complete soil overburden and should therefore have a significant higher vertical soil
pressure. The vertical pressures at the points next to and below the tunnel are connected by the
horizontal pressure. This implies that an instable situation would occur. As a result equilibrium will
be generated resulting in a total pressure below the tunnel somewhere in between the original
pressures of both points.
A commonly adapted solution is given in [5]. Its assumed that the effective vertical grain pressure
along the full tunnel circumference equals the effective vertical soil pressure by the original
overburden at the centre point of the tunnel. The hydrostatic water pressure remains unchanged,
resulting in a pressure difference between the top and bottom of the tunnel. This generates a floating
pressure component, which has been observed in the construction of actual shield driven tunnel as
well.
Tunnel rings are defined in a cylindrical coordinate system because of their circular shape. Therefore
the vertical and horizontal soil pressures have to be translated into radial and tangential ones (Figure
17). For this purpose conversion equations from Appendix A.2 are used. They read:
r cos 2 sin 2 v
= (9)
t cos sin cos sin h
v()
r()
t()
h()
17 | Orientation of vertical and horizontal versus radial and tangential soil loads
Now the radial total ground pressure holds after substitution of equations (5), (7) and (8) in (9):
r () = ' v ()(cos 2 + K 0 sin 2 ) + w ()
This also can be written as:
1+ K0 1 K0
r () = ' v () + cos 2 + w ()
2 2

Now two new scalars are defined:
1 + K0 1 K0
C1 = and C 2 =
2 2
So at the end the total radial ground pressure is transformed to:
r () = ' v ()(C 1 + C 2 cos 2) + w ()
From equation (9) the tangential ground pressure is isolated as:

t ( ) = (1 K 0 )' v () sin cos
By the introduction of scalar C2 this may be written as:
t ( ) = C 2 ' v () sin 2
Loads from the soil are introduced by forces at nodes in the framework model. The (radial) pressure
is therefore converted to the (radial) force:
bl
Fr ( ) = r () n
2
Where l n is the influence length along the linings circumference for one node. At an arbitrary node
in the span of the tunnel segment this length is defined as the full length of a beam element, at end
nodes (in the longitudinal joints) its defined as half the beam element length.
Excavation of soil by the TBM will induce deformations in the soil. In sand these deformations will
occur at once. The adhesive property of clayish materials or sand with clay included will spread the
deformations over a longer period of time and affect the tunnel in its serviceability stage. Hence these
induced deformations will result in loading of the tunnel in tangential direction. The complete loss of
loads in tangential direction (in case of sand) or the presence of a part of the tangential loads is only
introduced by multiplying the full tangential load by a reduction ratio t. In case of sand this ratio is
set to zero. If deformations remain it holds that t > 0. For the Botlek Rail Tunnel, which has been
constructed in soil with more-or-less similar conditions to the soil of this reports case study, a value
of t = 0,25 has been applied [17]. Hence that particular value will be used here as well.
Reduction of the ratio to t = 0 causes a bending moment saving of no less than 12 %. This shows one
of the advantages of shield driven tunnel construction in uncontaminated sand.
Support by the soil

In structures stiffness attracts bending moments. The same applies to tunnel structures, where both
the tunnel lining and soil have certain stiffness. Hence the loads from the soil are mutually
supported.
The interaction is introduced to the model by attaching the soil stiffness to the tunnel lining as linear
translation springs. The spring stiffness per unit of surface of the tunnels exterior for a cylinder with
ovalisation deformations (the transformation of the initial circular shape to an deformed oval shape
by the soil loading) is defined by [5]:
k soil ,r E
= oed (10)
A soil ,r 2R
Where:
Eoed = Oedometer stiffness of soil
R = External radius of the tunnel
Asoil,r = Surface the spring is representing
The Oedometer stiffness depends on the soil properties only. Similar to the soil loads the soil springs
are attached to the tunnel segments nodes. The stiffness in equation (10) was given per unit of
surface, hence it has to be converted as follows:

bl n E oed
c soil ,r =
4R
Soil springs are positioned between the mentioned nodes of tunnel segments and additional
restrained nodes with an equal angle, but larger radius. This clearly visualises that these springs are
no part of the tunnel structure itself, but represent soil.
3.2.5 Validation of the model

Before the described model will be applied frequently in the research on the feasibility of reduced
lining thicknesses for shield driven tunnels, a verification of the results accuracy is performed.
Results are compared to the ones from the graduation thesis by Slenders [17] on modelling of the
Botlek Rail Tunnel. A key stone had been included in that particular model. A verification model
without a key stone is generated using the application LDesign of Bloms dissertation [5] and
compared to the results of this studys model as well.
Validation with Botlek Rail Tunnel including key stone

From the report by Slenders [17] the following dimensions were retrieved, which have been applied
in the model for the Botlek Rail Tunnel:
Internal diameter = 8,65 m
Lining thickness = 0,40 m
Jack configuration = German (jacks at 0, and 1 segmental length)
Segments per ring = 7 and a key stone
Beam elements per segment = 6 (is possible for the German configuration)
Height contact area in longitudinal joint = 0,17 m
Spring stiffnesses longitudinal joints = r: 28109 kN/m, t: 281010 kN/m
Spring stiffness ring joint = 20107 kN/m
Angle of first longitudinal joint = 12,86
The concrete material was defined by:

Youngs modulus = 38.000 MPa
Lateral contraction = 0,2
The soil loading was represented by stresses on top, sides and bottom without any floating
component. The soil properties were:
Soil stresses top and bottom = 0,448 MPa
Soil stresses sides = 0,411 MPa
Oedometer stiffness = 38 MPa
In Slenders report another equation was used to translate the soil Oedometer stiffness into a spring
stiffness. That equation was commonly used before, but appears to be valid only for uniformly
loaded (hence without ovalisation) tunnel rings [5]. The equation was:
c soil ,r E oed
=
A R
Hence this equation results in a double spring stiffness compared to equation (10). In the model
about to be validated a fictitious double Oedometer stiffness of 76 MPa has been used to prevent
uneven results.
Resulting bending moments from both models corresponded very well. Figure 18 shows both
distributions of the bending moment and their local maximum values. At the sides and bottom of the
tunnel only small deviations up to 2,5 % occur. At the top however obvious changes of the bending
moment distribution take place due to the missing key stone. The deviation is still reduced to
approximately 4,2 % only.

100 Moment M [kNm]
50
Angle
0 []
0
0 30
33 -50
-76,5
-79,9 -100
0
60
30
BRT-model 87,2
270
90
Model for this study 84,9
0
24
12
0
-77,4 -76,5
21 0
0 15
180
18 | Moment distribution in validation BRT-model and model from this study
The absolute maximum values of both distributions are located at the right-hand side of the model
and vary just 2,5 %. Its therefore concluded that the generated model shows good results and that
variations between models with and without the presence of a key stone are only very small.
Therefore no key stone is included in this study.
Validation with LDesign

An additional verification of the model from this study will be performed using a verification model
without a key stone. The software application LDesign is a straightforward solution to obtain quick
results for calculations on the ring behaviour of shield driven tunnels. The same dimensions and
properties have been used as in the previous validation, only without a key stone now. The
application appears to use the same conversion for the soil spring stiffness as Slenders did, hence a
fictitious Oedometer stiffness of 76 MPa is introduced again.
Once more only very small deviations of the resulting bending moments were retrieved. The general
distribution of those bending moments is similar for both models as Figure 19 shows. Deviations of
the absolute maximum values were restricted to just 2,1 %. A likely explanation for this deviation
might be blamed on the fact that the LDesign model iterates the actual normal force in the
longitudinal Janen joints, though the model from this study uses an estimated value.
Both validations in this section demonstrate the model corresponds well to the results of existing
studies with variations of the maximum bending moments up to 2,5 % only. It is therefore assumed
that the models results are correct.

100 Moment M [kNm]
50
Angle
0 []
0
0 30
33 -50
-76,5
-78,2 -100
0
60
30
LDesign 86,8
270
90
Model for this study 84,9
0
24
12
0
-78,2 -76,5
21 0
0 15
180
19 | Moment distribution in validation model LDesign and model from this study
3.3 Model for the case study

This report investigates the feasibility of a reduced lining thickness for shield driven tunnels by use
of a case study for the future motorway A13/16 in the north of Rotterdam. In this section the
dimensions and proportions of the concrete tunnel lining, the thrust jack configuration and number
of segments per ring for that particular shield driven tunnel are determined.
3.3.1 Thrust jack configuration

The clarification of shield driven tunnels at the beginning of this report already revealed the
differences between two common European thrust jack configurations. The German configuration
(with thrust jacks over the longitudinal joints and at the middle of the tunnel segment) appeared to
have some specific properties that lead to damage in the concrete segments quite easily:
Large tensile forces due to the introduction of thrust jack forces
Sensitive to cracking by uneven placement of the segments
Positioning of ring interaction locations in the ring joint results in large peak bending
moments
In the French configuration (thrust jacks at and of the segmental length) these problems have
been averted. Hence in the tunnel of this study the French thrust jack configuration is applied.
3.3.2 Number of tunnel segments per ring

The Green Heart Tunnel was the first shield driven tunnel in the Netherlands with nine tunnel
segments per ring rather than the usual number of seven segments. As a result the tunnel segments
have a considerably lower weight and therefore are easier to transport and place. The maximum
bending moment also reduces in case more segments per ring are used. The additional longitudinal
joints reduce the total linings stiffness relative to the soil. Implying that a larger share of the bending
moments is supported by the soil.

This philosophy has been applied in the design of tunnels for the British Channel Tunnel Railway
Link (CTRL) project connecting central London and the Channel Tunnel by a new high speed railway
line. Some tunnels in this tender have been constructed from steel fibre reinforced concrete. It is
known that this material is less capable of bearing high bending moments compared to concrete with
reinforcement bars. Accordingly nine segments per ring were used in the lining with an internal
radius of just 7,15 m [2].
The proclaimed effect on the reduction of the maximum bending moment if more segments are used
has been studied on the lining of this studys shield driven tunnel. As a starting-point the number of
nine segments from the Green Heart Tunnel has been used. Compared to a ring with eleven
segments the maximum bending moment reduced by 4,6 % only. One should ask oneself whether
this small reduction of the bending moment in the embedded stage is sufficient to compensate for the
additional assembly actions and construction time by the increased number of segments to be placed
in each ring. In practise the number of segments is only defined by an optimisation for logistics. The
capacity of the production process, the capacity of lorries transporting segments to the construction
site and handling space in the tunnel boring machine are taken into account. Experience
demonstrated that seven to nine segments per ring are optimal for logistics purposes. Therefore nine
segments per ring will be used in the tunnel of the case study. At the end of the report this decision
will be reflected.
3.3.3 Dimensions of the tunnel segments

Proportions and dimensions of the concrete tunnel segments have been adopted from the final
design of the Green Heart Tunnel provisionally. The segmental width is set to 2 m.
The contact height in the longitudinal joints is 0,40 m in the Green Heart Tunnel, its segmental
thickness is 0,60 m. This ratio of 2:3 is applied in this study as well. No absolute value is given for
both, because various lining thicknesses will be analysed in the following section and chapters. A
parameter analysis shows that a reduction of the ratio between the joint contact height and lining
thickness to 1:2 results in a bending moment cutback of 4,7 %. Nevertheless rotations in these
longitudinal joints (giving an indication of the linings deformations) increase by a staggering 55 %.
Obviously the original ratio is adopted for this studys tunnel.
The contact height of the bearing pads in the ring joints is set equal to the one of the longitudinal
joints, hence a ratio 2:3 with the segmental thickness. The width of the pads is fixed at 1,50 m in the
meantime. The bearing pads do not affect the linings ring behaviour, yet do play a key role in the
introduction of thrust jack forces.
From the concrete material properties only the Youngs modulus and Poisson ratio are required for
the model. Lateral contraction, or the Poisson ratio, equals 0,2 for all considered concrete strength
classes C35/45, C100/115 and C180/210. The Youngs moduli vary and hold for each material:
EC35/45 = 33.500 MPa (NEN 6720)
EC100/115 = 45.000 MPa [6]
EC180/210 = 65.000 MPa (French interim recommendations [1])
These values hold for short-term uncracked concrete and therefore appear relatively conservative for
calculations on the ultimate limit state for the tunnels serviceability phase (more long-term than
short-term). Reduction of these values might be considered if calculations on the linings ring
behaviour appear to result in the governing situation. Therefore at the end of this report the value of
the Youngs modulus will be reflected once more.
3.3.4 Soil properties

Properties of sand packed at the location of the future tunnel for motorway A13/16 were present at
the engineering office of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam already and hold:

Eoed = 50 MPa
sd = 18 kN/m
sw = 20 kN/m
Figure 20 shows the complete framework model for this studys shield driven tunnel. Both rings
were assigned a different diameter in order to clarify the picture. Note that the diameters in the
actual model are equal.
L2 R L1
R R
L2
L1
R R
L2
L1
R
R
L1
L2
R
R
L2
L1
Lx Longitudinal joint in ring x
R Ring interaction
R
R
L2
L1
R
R
L1
L2
R R
L1
L2
R R
L2 R L1
20 | Complete framework model for the shield driven tunnel of this study
3.4 Relation with the lining thickness

Basically this chapter investigates whether very and ultra high strength concrete are able to cope with
the bending moments by the tunnels ring behaviour in a smaller lining thickness. Therefore
knowledge of the development of this bending moment at changing lining thicknesses is required.
A simple rule of thumb tells that the lining thickness of a shield driven tunnel in ordinary strength
concrete equals 1/20 of the tunnel diameter. For the tunnel of motorway A13/16 this implies 750 mm.
Provided that the ratio of all Dutch shield driven tunnels finished so far is used, a ratio of 1/22 or
lining thickness of 675 mm is sufficient. Calculations in this study focus on a wide range of lining
thicknesses along the standard value. Results from lining thicknesses between 100 and 1.000 mm
with steps of 100 mm are examined for all three applied concrete materials.

In Chapter 2 the vertical alignment of the tunnel for motorway A13/16 was assumed to be nearly
horizontal at a depth of -24 m + NAP. This depth projection is therefore applied in all calculations.
The underground crossing of high speed railway line HSL-Zuid forced the tunnel down to this level.
Ground level at this location is at -4,74 m + NAP, hence a soil overburden of 19,3 m is present. For a
tunnel with the standard lining thickness of 675 mm, this particular overburden corresponds to 1,2
times the external tunnel diameter, in other words: a depth projection of 1,2D.
A parameter analysis on the bending moment capacity of concrete tunnel linings showed that the
normal ring force is of great influence on this capacity, especially on the one for high strength steel
fibre reinforced concrete. The ratio between the bending moment capacity and the actual present
bending moment defines the margin or safety of the lining to cope with the moment. Therefore a
comparison of the safety levels for all three concrete strength classes might be influenced by the
normal ring force, which directly results from the tunnels depth projection.
The normal ring force is directly proportional to the total soil cover at the tunnel centre. In the
conversion of soil properties to soil loads the water pressure and effective grain pressure are average
at that specific depth. Depths of two and three times the standard cover at the centre are also
included in the calculations. The most shallow depth projection where each individual ring with an
arbitrary lining thickness is able to compensate the buoyancy force by use of its own weight and the
weight of the soil above, is determined at an overburden on top of the tunnel of 11,1 m (also see
Appendix A.3).
The depth projections in all calculations are defined as the soil cover (or overburden) on top of the
tunnel and have been stated in Table 3.
Table 3 | Notation and values depth projection tunnel
Soil cover centre tunnel Soil cover top tunnel1) Notation

19.2 m 11,1 m 0,7D
27,4 m 19,3 m 1,2D
54,8 m 46,7 m 2,9D
82,2 m 74,2 m 4,6D
1)
Assuming a lining thickness of 675 mm
3.4.1 Maximum bending moment

In the sections on the implementation of the framework model for embedded ring behaviour it has
been mentioned already that stiffness attracts bending moments in hyperstatic structures. Therefore
the ratio between the soil stiffness and tunnel lining stiffness determines the magnitude of bending
moments in the concrete tunnel lining. The thicker the lining, the stiffer it is, the higher the bending
moments it has to cope with.
This relation however is not linear. So to say the total stock of bending moments from the soil loads is
restricted, implying that the increment of the resulting bending moment starts to descend at very
large lining thicknesses. It approaches some kind of asymptote.
In Figure 21a the non-linear phenomena is visible for the tunnel with an internal diameter of 14,9 m
and a soil coverage of 11,1 m (0,7D_.
From the Youngs moduli for the considered concrete strength classes in section 3.3.3 it follows that a
lining of ultra high strength concrete is 94 % stiffer at similar thicknesses compared to ordinary
concrete (65.000 MPa versus 33.500 MPa for uncracked moduli). At very thin lining thicknesses no
reduction by the mentioned asymptote is observed yet. At vary low thicknesses (approaching to 0
mm) resulting in an additional bending moment for C180/210 compared to ordinary concrete C35/45
of 94 % as well. However when the lining thickness increases it becomes clear that stiffer concrete
will reach the asymptote at an earlier level. The relative surplus for concrete materials with a higher
Youngs modulus descends if the lining thickness increases. Figure 21b visualises this trend by means
of a diagram with this relative surplus for C180/210 and C100/115 compared to C35/45.

Maximum bending moment [kNm]
Surplus moment relative to C35/45 [%]

1000
80
C180/210 C180/210
800
60
600 C100/115
40
400 C35/45 C100/115
20
200
Thickness h [mm] Thickness h [mm]

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
21 | Maximum bending moment by ring behaviour for depth of 0,7D. a) absolute values; b) surplus relative to maximum
moments for ordinary concrete C35/45
The normal ring force is not influenced by the tunnels lining thickness. Or actually: it shouldnt be.
In the model however the depth projection is defined by a certain soil cover on top of the tunnel and
the internal diameter is fixed. So at an increasing lining thickness, the external diameter grows,
forcing the heart of the tunnel (where the loads are defined and hence the normal ring force is related
to) down by the additional thickness. The resulting slight increase of the normal ring force is
presented in Figure 22.
0 200 400 600 800 1000
-2200
Thickness h [mm]
-2300 C35/45
C100/115
-2400
C180/210
Normal ring force [kN]
-2500
C180/210
-2600
C35/45
-2700
22 | Normal ring force by ring behaviour for depth of 0,7D
Similar to the normal ring force (see Figure 23a), the maximum bending moment in the lining is more
or less directly proportional to the soil overburden on top of the tunnels heart. The size of the soil
loads (at average defined at that point) is responsible once more. For a standard lining thickness of
675 mm the maximum values have been given in Figure 23b, apparently the ratios between all three
concrete strength classes dont change. Therefore no additional deviations of the maximum bending
moments occur for the three concrete strength classes an increasing depth. Except for the increasing
absolute values of course, as Figure 24 demonstrates.
An increasing maximum bending moment either by an increasing depth or increasing lining

thickness does not necessarily imply a loss of safety provided that the ultimate resisting moment (or
bending moment capacity) increases with a similar or higher rate. The next section will therefore deal
with the development of the bending moment capacity for the considered concrete strength classes
and depth projections.

0 -2000 -4000 -6000 -8000 -10000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Normal ring force [kN] Maximum bending moment [kNm]
Tunnel depth from centre line [m]

19,2 (0,7D) 19,2 (0,7D)
27,4 (1,2D) 27,4 (1,2D)
C180/210
C100/115
54,8 (2,9D) 54,8 (2,9D)
C35/45
82,2 (4,6D) 82,2 (4,6D)
a b
23 | Effect of tunnel depth projection with a lining thickness of 675 mm. a) normal ring force; b) tangential bending moment

4000 4000
3000 3000
C180/210
2000 2000 C100/115

C180/210 C35/45
1000 C100/115 1000
C35/45

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
4000
C180/210
3000
C100/115
2000
C35/45
1000
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
c
24 | Maximum bending moment by ring behaviour for soil overburden of: a) 1,2D; b) 2,9D; c) 4,6D
3.4.2 Bending moment capacity of the lining
Calculation procedure of the ultimate resisting moment

For concrete elements with a rectangular cross-section, ordinary concrete and one layer of steel
reinforcement bars, the ultimate resisting moment Mu is determined as follows according to Dutch
building codes:
h
M u = N c 0 ,389 x u + N s h c + N rep (11)
2 2
Where:
Nc = Compressive normal force in concrete

xu = Height of the compressive zone
Ns = Tensile force in steel reinforcement bars
h = Height of rectangular cross-section
c = Concrete cover for reinforcement bars
= Diameter of the reinforcement bars
Nrep = Representative acting normal force on the cross-section
This section will demonstrate that the acting normal force has a positive effect (up to a certain depth.)
on the linings bending moment capacity Therefore the representative normal force Nrep has been
introduced, that does not include any safety factors. Minimum values resulting from calculations on
the embedded ring behaviour have been applied.
0,389 xu
xu
Nc
h
Mu
Nrep
Ns
c+/2
25 | Calculation definition ultimate resisting moment
The equation is based on the mechanism shown in Figure 25. Where the tensile force in the steel
rebars is defined as:
N s = A s fs
Where:
As = Steel area of rebars
fs = Representative strength of reinforcement steel
From the equilibrium of horizontal forces it follows:

Fh = 0 Nc = Ns + Nrep
The height of the compressive zone is determined by:

Nc
xu =
0 ,75f'c b
Where:
f'c = Design value of concrete compressive strength
b = Width of the rectangular cross-section
Scalars 0,389 in the basic equation for Mu and 0,75 in the determination of xu hide the fact that this
calculation procedure assumes that the concrete is not able to cope with any tensile forces and that its
ultimate compressive strain is twice the compressive yield strain. Subsequently the procedure
assumes the strain in the concrete cross-section at the position of the rebars is of such tensile extent
that the maximum tensile strength from the stress-strain diagram (see Figure 26) is reached.
For calculations on the ultimate resisting moment of tunnel segments in this study a more
comprehensive calculation procedure is required. Several properties of the described simplified
procedure disagree with the following requirements:
Tensile stresses from the concrete should be introduced for the steel fibre reinforced
concrete materials very and ultra high strength concrete.
The ratio between the ultimate compressive strain and compressive yield strain of concrete
should be free, since this ratio does not equal 1:2 for very and ultra high strength concrete.

The use of multiple reinforcement layers should be possible: bending moments in the same
tunnel segment may be both positive and negative over time; hence reinforcement is
required at the top and bottom of the cross-section. As a result one layer is located in the
concrete compressive zone, so the rebars are under pressure as well; resulting in the next
requirement:
Stresses in the reinforcement layers should depend on the actual (concrete) strain at its
location, not just on the maximum tensile strength for reinforcement steel.
Maximum tensile stress

Stress [MPa]
450
300
150
Strain []
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-150
-300
-450
26 | Stress-strain diagram of reinforcement steel
Additionally to the enumeration the tensile behaviour of ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced
concretes turns out to be rather complicated. Consequently another procedure is required to include
all four requisites in the calculation of the ultimate resisting moment. The calculation will be altered
to make the stress-strain relations of concrete and steel the base of the entire determination.
Therefore the same principles from the simplified determination of the building code are applied
again, meaning the equilibrium of horizontal forces and the equilibrium of bending moments:
ns
Fh = 0 Nc + Fsj = Nrep
j=1
ns
M = 0 M u = M c + M sj M N
j =1
Where:
Fsj = Tensile steel force for reinforcement layer j
Mc,sj or N = Contribution to the ultimate resisting moment by the concrete (c), steel
reinforcement layer j (sj) or the normal ring force (N)
ns = Number of steel reinforcement layers
Obtaining the ultimate resisting moment Mu from these equilibrium equations demands a vast
number of identical calculations, which makes working out by hand a very uninteresting activity. For
that reason a Visual Basic .NET2 application has been implemented to do the job. In Appendix B the
calculation process of this application has been reproduced.
Stress-strain diagram for very and ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete
The French interim recommendations on structures in ultra high strength concrete [1] also contained
a stress-strain relation or diagram for this special material. Two different effects by the steel fibres
were presented: strain hardening (Figure 27a) and strain softening (27b). Their use will be discussed
at a later stage.

stress ()
stress ()
f'c f'c
E E
u 1% 0,3 el strain () u 1% 0,3 el strain ()

c 'u c 'u
f1% f1%
fc
fel fel
fc
a b
27 | Stress-strain relations of ultra high strength concrete: a) strain hardening; b) and strain softening
The parameters from the diagrams in Figure 27 are defined by:

f
el = el
E'c
Where fel represents the tensile stress where cracking of concrete occurs for the first time, namely the
end of the linear elastic behaviour of concrete in the tensional area. The Youngs modulus E is
retrieved from product data by the materials manufacturer or from the French recommendations.
w ( w 0 , 3 )
0 , 3 = 0 , 3 + el and fc =
lc K
The stress fc corresponds to the stress at crack width w0,3 = 0,3 mm in the initial characteristic stress-
crack width relation for the material (the stress-strain relation is originally derived from the stress-
crack width relation). Parameter l c represents the characteristic length of the cross-section, for
rectangular and T-shaped sections it holds: l c = 23 h , where h (in mm) is the height of the cross-
sectional area.
Scalar K is an orientation coefficient for the steel fibres. Values between 1 and 1,75 may be used,
depending on the use and relative thickness of the segment.
w ( w1% )
1% = 1% + el and f1% =
lc K
The stress 1% represents the stress at crack width w1% = 0,01 H of the characteristic stress-crack width
relation. Dimension H is the height of the bending test specimen, corresponding to 100 mm in the
interim recommendations.
l
u = f (12)
4l c
Where l f corresponds to the length of the steel fibres.
f 'c
'c = (13)
E
Where f'c is the compressive design strength.
' u = 3
Calculations on the ultimate limit state of the structure demand an additional safety factor on strain
el and the tensile stresses fc and f1% according to the French recommendations. This partial safety
factor for fibres holds: f = 1,3
The value of stress fc defines whether the concrete behaves with strain hardening or strain softening:
only if fc > fel strain hardening will occur. The phenomenon of strain hardening is induced by the
steel fibres. The effect on the total ultimate resisting moment however is only extremely small and
may therefore be neglected in this calculation.

No recommendations on the material of very high strength concrete exist so far. The concrete
strength class C100/115 in this study includes steel fibres as well; as a result its presumed that the
French recommendations apply on this material as well [6].
The product BSI-Cracem by Eiffage is applied for ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete
C180/210 in this study. Its stress strain relation is determined by use of several parameters in the
interim recommendations:
f'c = 126 MPa
fc = fel= 9,1 MPa [1]
f1% = 7 MPa (value has been scaled from values used in [9])
E = 65.000 MPa
lf = 20 mm (amount of fibres 200 kg/m or 2,5 vol-%) [19]
For very high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete C100/115 a mixture described in [6] is used,
which principal values read:
f'c = 69 MPa
fc = fel= 5 MPa
f1% = 4 MPa (scaled from C180/210)
E = 45.000 MPa
'c = 1,75 (this value from the building code is larger than the one resulting from
equation (13) and therefore assumed critical)
lf = 40 mm (amount of fibres 125 kg/m or 1,6 vol-%)
Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]
-80 -120
-100
-60
-80
-40 -60
-40
-20
-20
Strain [] Strain []
30 20 10 0 -10 15 10 5 0 -5
b a
28 | Stress-strain diagrams steel fibre reinforced concretes a) C100/115; b) C180.210
Development ultimate restisting moment

The simplified calculation method for the ultimate resisting moment gives an idea of the
transformation of this capacity when the lining thickness or normal ring force (related to the tunnels
depth projection) changes. The equations again:
h
M u = N c 0 ,389x u + N s h c + N rep
2 2
N s = A sfs
Fh = 0 Nc = Ns + Nrep
Nc
xu =
0 ,75f' b b
Enlargement of the lining thickness results in an increase of the lever arms for reinforcing steel (h c
/ 2) and the contribution by the normal ring force (h / 2). This obviously results in a higher

bending moment capacity at thicker linings, even though the stress development in the concrete
cross-section didnt change yet. If the correct values for the steel stresses (reflecting on the steel force
Ns) are adopted which applies to the calculation in the application the steel rebars might be
located within the height xu of the concrete compressive zone. The reinforcement is under pressure
now as well, revolving its initial positive contribution to the total bending moment capacity into a
negative one.
Then again the concrete compression force Nc is affected by the force in the reinforcement bars,
which then reshapes the height of the compressive zone. The equation for compression force Nc
shows that this force is lower in case of rebars under compression in stead of tension. This variation
however is only very small compared to the acting normal ring force Nrep. As a result this
phenomenon does not prevent the steel force from turning to tension if the lining thickness increases
from very slender to thick. This is an additional positive effect on the bending moment capacity of
the cross-section.
Provided that no reinforcement bars are used, as is most desirable from the point of cost saving for
very and ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete, the contribution by the reinforcing steel
to the total bending moment capacity is obviously omitted. Nevertheless these concrete materials are
able to resist some tensile stresses in their own cross-section. But as a result of the stress-strain
relation (see Figure 28) the value of these tensile stresses decreases if the distance from the concrete
compression zone increases. Hence if the lever arm for the contribution to the ultimate resisting
moment increases, the tensile stress actually decreases. On top of this the height of the tensile zone
decreases if the lining thickness increases (because of equation (12) on page 34), causing a smaller
positive contribution in stead of a larger one as in case of deep beams or linings. This negative
property undermines the contribution of steel fibres to the bending moment capacity, which is
thereby relatively inadequate.
An advantage of very and ultra high strength concrete should now exist of the capability to cope
with compressive normal forces in a narrower concrete compression zone compared to ordinary
concrete. By this means the negative contribution to the ultimate resisting moment is restricted. At
equal acting normal forces the height of the concrete compression zone remains almost unchanged
(some distortion occurs by the length of the tension zone). The contribution to the bending moment
capacity is thereby independent of the lining thickness. The most significant advantage of a small
compression zone is subsequently reached if the contribution by rebars in ordinary concrete is
relatively small because of a small lever arm, hence if the lining thickness is low. In that range the
length of the tension zone is larger and therefore more effective as well.
As soon as the lengths of both the concrete compression and tension zone are very small compared to
the lining thickness, the lever arm of the normal ring force only causes the bending moment capacity
to grow. Implying that at relatively low normal ring forces and high lining thicknesses the resulting
ultimate resisting moment for ultra high strength concrete might be smaller than the one for ordinary
concrete with reinforcement bars. For these rebars a steel quality of FeB435/500 and reinforcement
percentage of 0,22 % (minimum requirement for concrete C35/45 according NEN 6720) on top and
bottom of the cross-section are used, with a concrete cover of 35 mm and bars of 12 mm.
In Figure 29 the described phenomena are indeed observed for the most shallow depth projection.
Remarkably the ultimate resisting moment for C100/115 surpasses the one of C180/210 from
approximately 300 mm on. The higher compressive strength of the latter copes with the acting
normal force in a smaller concrete compressive zone. The absolute height of the compression area
defines the absolute height of the tensile region since they are interconnected in the stress-strain
diagram. Consequently the contribution by the tensile force is inadequate at smaller lining
thicknesses for C180/210, causing the bending moment capacity to approach the contribution by the
normal ring force only at an earlier stage (dashed line in Figure 29).

Ultimate resisting moment [kNm]
2000
C35/45
1500
1000 C180/210
C100/115
500 C180/210
Contribution normal force
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
29 | Ultimate resisting moment at a depth of 0,7D
If the acting normal force Nrep (the minimum normal ring force) in the cross-section increases, the
height of the concrete compression zone is primarily manipulated. By its enlargement the variations
of the negative contributions for the considered concrete strength classes will rise. This is in favour of
very and ultra high strength concrete. As soon as this favour exceeds the contribution ordinary
concrete gets from its reinforcement bars, the bending moment capacity will be higher for ultra high
strength concrete even at large lining thicknesses.
A larger concrete compressive zone of course implies a larger height of the tensile zone in fibre
reinforced concrete as well. Subsequently higher tensile stresses occur at relatively large distances
from the compressive zone. These higher tensile stresses have a positive contribution to the
comparison of higher strength concrete and ordinary concrete as well.
The indisputable positive effect of the normal ring force or tunnel depth projection on the bending
moment capacity of ultra high strength concrete is shown in Figure 30. The capacities of all
considered concrete strength classes and depth projections are presented for a standard lining
thickness of 675 mm. Concrete C180/210 commences with the smallest capacity of all at a depth of
11,1 m (0,7D) (normal ring force approximately 2.550 kN) because its tensile zone is inadequate
already; at a depth projection of 74,2 m (4,6D) (normal ring force 11.100 kN) however it grew to own
the largest capacity, exceeding the one of reinforced concrete C35/45 by no less than 120 %.
Figure 31 displays the development of the bending moment capacity at increasing lining thicknesses
for the three remaining depth projections. The fact that the increment of the compressive zone at high
normal forces (depths) also causes the tensile zone to grow, is visible by the fact that the capacity of
C100/115 exceeds the one of C180/210 at ever higher lining thicknesses.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

19,2 (0,7D)
27,4 (1,2D) C100/115
54,8 (2,9D) C35/45
C180/210
82,2 (4,6D)
30 | Development ultimate resisting moment at various depth projections for lining thickness of 675 mm


5000 5000
4000 4000
C100/115
3000 3000
C35/45
2000 2000 C180/210 C35/45
C100/115
1000 C180/210 1000

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
5000
4000 C180/210
3000 C100/115
C35/45
2000
1000
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
c
31 | Ultimate resising moment at depth projections of: a) 1,2D; b) 2,9D; c) 4,6D
The preceding discussion obviously demonstrates the main advantage of ultra high strength
concrete. Not the materials tensile strength, but its capability to cope with enormous normal forces
in a very small cross-section is positive. Therefore all present bridges constructed from ultra high
strength concrete have been prestressed to a very high extent. So actually its not the concrete itself,
but the large prestress force that generates a high bending moment capacity for thin beams.
3.4.3 Retrieving the required lining thickness

For all considered concrete strength classes the occurring bending moments and bending moment
capacities are know for a wide range of lining thicknesses and depth projections. Division of the
bending moment capacity by the occurring moment returns a safety ratio which shows the amount of
spare capacity for the tunnel segments cross-section.
A required safety ratio is not included in Dutch building codes. Different from for instance bridges
and buildings, no additional recommendations exist for the design of shield driven tunnels. In
common structures like bridges loads are multiplied by a certain partial load factor. For shield driven
tunnels however higher loads result in a higher normal ring force, which might positively influence
the linings bending moment capacity. Hence a more favourable instead of less favourable situation
is generated. As a result sometimes old codes were used, codes that included only one combined
safety factor. This factor is applied on the reaction forces and bending moments, not on the loads.
Application of the partial loading factor on the reaction forces and partial material factors on the
cross-sectional capacities has a more-or-less similar result. For this study the latter principal is used
in order to include all partial safety factors in the stress-strain diagram for ultra high strength
concrete from the French interim recommendations. Partial safety factors for shield driven tunnels
are slightly higher compared to ordinary structures to include the risks and doubts about calculation
methods. In Appendix C an enumeration has been given for these factors according to Dutch and
German building codes. Subsequently a partial load factor = 1,5 is applied.

Determination of the resulting safety factors indicates a descending safety for all concrete strength
classes if the lining thickness ascends. Hence the increment of the bending moment capacity is
insufficient to keep up with the acting bending moment. Nevertheless the actual safety factor exceeds
the required level for most considered thicknesses.
Safety factor Mu / Mmax

6 6
5 5
C100/115
4 C100/115 4
C180/210
3 3
C35/45 C180/210
C35/45
2 2
= 1,5 = 1,5
1 1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
6 6
5 5
4 4
C180/210
3 3
C100/115
C100/115
2 2
= 1,5 = 1,5
1 C35/45 C180/210 1
C35/45
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
c d
32 | Development of safety factor Mu/Mmax at depth projections of: a) 0,7D; b) 1,2D; c) 2,9D; d) 4,6D
At shallow depths its no surprise the safety factor of ultra high strength concrete C180/210 is lower
than the one of ordinary concrete C35/45, particularly in thick linings. The reason of course is the
small value of its bending moment capacity due to the relatively low acting normal force. Figure 32a
indeed demonstrates this phenomenon. The other graphs in Figure 32 also show that the
performance of high strength concretes improves compared to ordinary concrete at higher depths. At
a soil cover of 74,2 m (4,6D) ordinary concrete C35/45 is unable to reach the required safety level. Up
to a certain level this problem is relatively easy tackled by applying more steel bar reinforcement.
As mentioned the trend of the safety development for the bending moment in embedded ring
behaviour is downward at an increasing lining thickness. Hence the lining thickness where the
required and occurring safety levels meet is an upper boundary condition for the lining thickness. In
other words: a required lining thickness that apparently follows from other calculations may not
exceed the requirement from this mechanism. For the considered amount of reinforcement in
ordinary concrete, a lower boundary condition is present at high depths as well. The lining is unable
to reach the required safety level.
Values of the upper boundary conditions have been shown in Table 4 for the considered concrete
strength classes and soil overburdens.
Of course these upper boundary conditions do not imply that a solid tunnel (or a tunnel with an
extremely large lining thickness) leads to failure by the embedded ring behaviour. As mentioned
before the resulting bending moment in the lining will reach a maximum value at some point.

However at increasing lining thicknesses the bending moment capacity will keep on growing.
Consequently at some point the bending moment safety level will ascend again and finally exceed
the required safety level. At extremely high lining thicknesses a new lower boundary condition is
created now.
Table 4 | Upper boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of embedded ring behaviour
Overburden C35/45 C100/115 C180/210

11,1 m (0,7D) n/a1) 910 mm 580 mm
19,3 m (1,2D) n/a1) 1020 mm2) 595 mm
46,7 m (2,9D) (400 mm)3) 1480 mm2) 610 mm
74,2 m (4,6D) (1.320 mm)4) 620 mm 590 mm
1)
No boundary condition present within the considered range of lining thicknesses, the safety level is higher than required
at any point.
2)
Value has been determined by extrapolation.
3)
No upper boundary condition present, although a lower boundary condition occurs at 400 mm.
4)
Required safety level is never reached by the considered cross-section. Extrapolation shows a thickness of at least 1.320
mm is required.
3.5 Conclusions
Resulting normal ring forces and bending moments in the tunnel ring enlarge linear proportional to
the depth of the tunnels centre line. The bending moment significantly increases if the lining
thickness ascends.
Alterations of the tunnel rings design details, such as extension of the number of tunnel segments
per ring, result in a very small reduction of the bending moment only.
Steel fibres in very and ultra high strength concrete hardly contribute to the total bending moment
capacity (or ultimate resisting moment). Thereby the bending moment capacity of very and ultra
high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete strongly depends on the acting normal ring force.
The thicker a lining of very or ultra high strength concrete, the smaller the contribution of steel fibres
to the bending moment capacity becomes. As a result thin linings with a high acting normal ring
force (hence at large depths) provide the best use of these materials capacities concerning normal
forces and bending moment capacity when compared to reinforced ordinary concrete.
In very shallow tunnels (overburden of 11,1 m (0,7D)) with relatively thick linings (over 400 mm) the
bending moment capacity of reinforced ordinary concrete C35/45 grows bigger than the one of ultra
high strength concrete C180/210. Lacking of steel reinforcement bars in the latter is responsible for
this.
The linings bending moment safety level the safety margin to cope with the resulting bending
moments for ring behaviour of an embedded tunnel decreases if the lining thickness ascends.
Consequently the thickness where the required safety level is hit is the maximum value that can be
applied; hence an upper boundary condition of the required lining thickness. Reinforced ordinary
concrete C35/45 has no upper boundary condition in the considered range of lining thicknesses.
In very deep tunnels the high normal ring force reduces the bending moment capacity of reinforced
ordinary concrete that is now unable to reach the required safety level. Therefore a lower boundary
condition for embedded ring behaviour appears for this material at great depths.
All boundary conditions on the required lining thickness by embedded ring behaviour have been
displayed in Table 4 and Figure 33.

0 200 400 600 800 1000
Thickness h [mm]
19,2 0,7D
27,4 1,2D
C180/210 C100/115
54,8 2,9D
C35/45
82,2 4,6D
33 | Upper boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of embedded ring behaviour (lower boundary
for C35/45)

Chapter 4
Grouting phase
4.1 Introduction
Tunnel rings are assembled within the shield of the tunnel boring machine (TBM). Therefore its
diameter is larger than the tunnels external one. Behind the machine a tail void between the soil and
tunnel is created during the excavation process. In order to prevent loss of soil support and possible
settlements at ground level, the semi-liquid material grout is injected in the void.
Grout that consists of sand, water, potentially cement and several additives like bentonite or
plasticizers has some special properties that make it suitable for its specific task. The material is not
actually liquid, but has a very low plastic yielding shear strength (viscosity) in the beginning. In
other words: the material has a low resistance against flowing. If it flows (visco-plastic behaviour) it
can easily be transported and injected into the void. Nevertheless if the yielding shear strength has
not been exceeded yet, the material is able to resist some shear stresses, which is not the case for a
liquid.
If grout is subjected to a compressive pressure (ground and water pressure in this case) for some
time, water will be squeezed out of the material and therefore the viscosity increases, thus the
material stiffens. Over time it will turn into a stiff shell making interaction of the tunnel rings and the
surrounding soil possible.
As long as the grout didnt harden yet the tunnel would like to float up in the semi-liquid material.
The support of the tunnel then completely changes and is no longer comparable to the principal
applied in Chapter 3 for a tunnel embedded in soil. Interaction between soil and lining is not acting
in fresh grout.
In Bloms dissertation [5] came forth that the bending moment in the grouting phase, or uplift
loading case, might play a key role in the determination of the required lining thickness. The
resulting bending moment of this loading case appeared to barely depend on the linings thickness.
However, because the bending moment capacity remains unchanged compared to the calculations in
the previous chapter, the safety factor for this loading case will obviously ascend. In Bloms study the
required safety level for the Botlek Rail Tunnel was reached at a lining thickness of approximately
1/20 D.
So if the lining thickness 1/20 D of a tunnel with ordinary reinforced concrete is determined by the
fact that its ultimate resisting moment equals the design value of the bending moment of the
grouting phase, this might help to retrieve the required lining thicknesses for another concrete
strength class. Implying the other way round it should also hold that the bending moment capacity
of another type of concrete with a certain lining thickness h equals the bending moment capacity of
ordinary reinforced concrete with a lining thickness of 1/20 D. Now the required thickness h can be
resolved.
The analysis on the Botlek Rail Tunnel in Bloms study has been performed for an overburden of
approximately 1,4D. The question should be raised whether this hypothesis applies to deeper tunnels
as well. Subsequently the effects on the ultimate resisting moment for the tunnel lining of motorway
43
A13/16 have been inquired at an increasing normal ring force, hence at an increasing depth.
Although the tunnel may no longer be in full contact with the soil, the normal ring force should still
make equilibrium with the ground pressure and therefore develops identical to the normal ring force
in the embedded situation.
For an unreinforced cross-section with concrete unable to cope with any tensile forces, the
equilibrium of horizontal forces holds according to the simplified calculation method for the ultimate
resisting moment on page 31:
Fh = 0 Nc = Nrep
At an increasing acting normal force on the cross-section the height of the compressive zone will
grow directly proportional to that force:
Nc Nrep
xu = =
0 ,75f' b b 0 ,75f' b b
Its negative contribution to the bending moment capacity therefore grows with a parabolic
proportional rate:
0 ,389 N rep 2
M c = N c 0 ,389 x u =
0 ,75f' b b
The positive contribution by the normal force itself obviously ascends with a directly proportional
rate only:
h
M N = N rep
2
Hence the total ultimate resisting moment is a combination of these parabolic and linear equations:
0 ,389 N rep 2 h
Mu = Mc + M N = + Nrep
0 ,75f' b b 2
At relatively low normal forces the linear part of this equation is predominant and the capacity will
rise if the normal force increases. However at some point a turning point is reached and the capacity
will drop due to the parabolic part. For this simple case that point is located at 8.785 kN for concrete
C35/45. This is clearly visible in Figure 34 as well, where line (a) represents unreinforced concrete.
A reinforcement layer at the bottom of the cross-section will elevate the ultimate resisting moment
(as described in last chapter). If however the normal force reaches such high values that the tensile
stress in the reinforcement layer drops or even turns into compression, the capacity will consequently
decrease. At line (b) in Figure 34 this provokes ordinary concrete with a reinforcement percentage of
0,22 % to descend from approximately 7.900 kN.
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 2000
0
0D
2000 0,7D
1,2D 1D
4000
Estimated tunnel depth from top [m/m]
(a)
(b)
2D
6000
2,9D
3D
8000
10000 (a) Unreinforced C35/45 4D
(b) Reinforced C35/45 4,2D

12000 5D
14000 6D
34 | Development ultimate resisting moment over the depth for 675 mm thick reinforced concrete C35/45

Nonetheless there are no reasons to assume that the development of the grout phase bending
moment contains just such turning point. So a lining of reinforced concrete with a thickness of 1/20 D
might not be governing for the grout moment at every tunnel depth.
Hence the behaviour of the tunnel in the grouting phase should be investigated in more detail. For
that the application LDesign is used, which contains a function for calculations on the uplift loading
case of shield driven tunnels. LDesign was originally implemented for research on Bloms
dissertation [5]. Section 4.2 shortly describes the background of the model.
Section 4.3 focuses on the relation between the safety factor for the grout bending moment and the
lining thickness. Section 4.4 displays several conclusions regarding the behaviour of shield driven
tunnels in the grouting phase and the required lining thickness for that particular phase.
4.2 Modelling of the grout phase

A framework model has been presented in [5] which is able to approximate grout pressures during
the building phase of a shield driven tunnel. By these pressures resulting bending moments in the
tunnel lining are retrieved. This section briefly explicates the basics of the model.
4.2.1 Background of the uplift loading case model

The shield driven tunnel and the injected fresh grout are surrounded by water pressure at all time. If
the grout makes no contact with the tunnel lining the water pressure only loads the tunnel and its
the tunnels own dead weight that should compensate the upward floating component of the
hydrostatic pressure. However at usual lining thicknesses this wont be the case. Nevertheless in
actual tunnel construction a stable situation is reached at some point, the tunnel does not float up
completely. So even in fresh grout some contact between the grout and lining must exist.
In the introduction to this chapter it was mentioned that grout has some capability to cope with shear
stresses. Only if this capacity is exceeded grout will flow. At that moment the so-called shear yield
strength is reached. If the shield driven tunnel moves upward due to the floating component the
grout shear stress will grow till it reaches its maximum value. By addition of its downward
component to the tunnels dead weight it follows:
DW + grout ,tan gential ,vertical = Dhb concrete + Db yield
Where:
DW = Dead weight tunnel
grout ,tan gential ,vertical = Vertical component of tangential frictional shear stress between tunnel and
grout
D = External diameter tunnel
h = Thickness tunnel lining
b = Width tunnel segment
concrete = Specific gravity concrete
yield = Shear yield strength grout (0,0015 MPa [5])

Fictitious top support
Soil Injected grout
Dead weight tunnel

TBM
Plastic shear
yield stress grout
Grout pressure as load
35 | Forces and definitions in the uplift loading case [5]
Grout surrounds the tunnel; therefore its this material that transmits the water pressure to the
tunnel. In addition the mentioned contact between tunnel lining and grout influences the pressure in
the grout as well. The product of both, the actual grout pressure, now also includes the floating
component and should consequently equal the downward directed forces. In Figure 35 this principal
has been visualised. The definition now holds:
grout ,radial , vertical = DW + grout , tan gential , vertical
Where:
grout ,radial , vertical = Vertical component of the radial grout pressure, consisting of:
Water pressure
Lining-grout contact pressure
Hence the upward component of the total grout pressure equals the downward components by the
tunnels dead weight and the tangential loading of the tunnel by the grouts shear stresses. As a
result for the vertical component of the grout pressure it holds:
grout ,radial ,vertical = Dhb concrete + Db yield
Provided that the grout pressure develops as a hydrostatic pressure along the lining, it may be
written as:
2
grout ,radial , vertical = 4 D beq
Where eq is an equivalent specific gravity assigned to the grout. Accordingly it holds:
Dhb concrete + Db yield h concrete + yield
eq = =4
2 D
D b
4
Assuming ordinary concrete C35/45 (concrete = 24 10-6 N/mm), a lining thickness of 675 mm and
grout with a shear yield stress of 0,0015 MPa the equivalent specific gravity holds for the tunnel of
motorway A13/16:
675 24 10 6 + 0 ,0015
eq = 4 = 4 ,1 10 6 N / mm 3 = 4 ,1 kN / m 3
(14.900 + 2 675)
This implies that vertical equilibrium occurs if the specific gravity of the floating component in grout
is lowered from the specific gravity of water w = 10 kN/m to the equivalent specific gravity eq = 4,1
kN/m. Now the tunnels dead weight and the grout shear stresses are able to compensate the
remaining upward component of eq. According to Bloms dissertation this reduction of the upward
pressure has been observed in measures on site as well. Besides, finite element models where a
tunnel embedded in a uniform soil continuum is loaded by the hydrostatic water pressure return the

same result. This indicates that the grout-lining contact pressure behaves like some kind of uniform
bedding.
Having a closer look on the grout pressures resulting from comprehensive finite element analyses
shows that the grout pressure does not develop perfectly hydrostatic. A pressure peak arises on top
of the tunnel. This behaviour will be explained by analysing the development and creation of the
grout pressure:
If grout has just been injected in the tail void along a certain tunnel ring, this ring is not yet moving
upward. The considered ring has only recently left the tunnel boring machine and the next ring, that
is still within the machine, prevents any vertical movement. Though as soon as the ring does move,
the grout shear stress builds up. At the top of the tunnel grout is compressed between the moving
tunnel and fixed soil. The shear yield strength has not been reached yet; hence grout is not able to
flow away from the top. As a result the grout pressure above keeps increasing due to interlocking.
Only if the shear yield strength is exceeded somewhere, grout at that particular location is able to
flow from the top to the sides and bottom of the tail void. Because of the tunnels upward movement
a relatively low grout pressure was generated in the void at the bottom of the tunnel. By flowing
grout this phenomenon is partly compensated.
Provided that the grout-lining contact pressure behaves like a uniform bedding, a local pressure
increase is simulated by a local enlargement of the beddings stiffness, an additional fictitious
bedding. In his study Blom presumed that this additional stiffness diminishes from the tunnels top
to its sides in accordance with a quadratic cosine distribution. His study also shows that the
magnitude of the pressure increment is related to the soil overburden, the soils specific gravity and
the tunnels external radius. Consequently the stiffness of the fictitious top support is defined as:
k fictitious = cos 2 () k uniform
Where:
h s s
= 1
R w
With:
hs = Overburden soil
kuniform = Stiffness uniform bedding
s = Specific gravity of soil
w = Specific gravity of water
= Angle along tunnel circumference (0 at the top)
At the standard depth with an overburden of 19,3 m (1,2D) the -ratio for the tunnel from this study
holds:
19 ,3 20
= 1 = 3,75
14 ,9 / 2 + 0 ,675 10
If the stiffness of the uniform bedding for the grout-lining contact pressure is set to a very low value
of for instance 1 MPa, the pressure is able to develop smoothly without significant bending moment
reduction due to ring behaviour as described in the previous chapter. Now a value of 3,75 cos(0) + 1
= 4,75 MPa holds for the total bedding stiffness of the top support , which is the sum of the fictitious
and uniform bedding (see Figure 36).

Fictitious support [MPa]
5
1
Angle []
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
36 | Fictitious top support
This calculation procedure (implemented in LDesign) has been applied on the Green Heart Tunnel in
Bloms study. The resulting total grout pressure, consisting of the water pressure and grout-lining
contact pressure, was practically similar to the pressure resulting from finite element models.
Bending moments in the tunnel lining result from this grout pressure in LDesign.
4.2.2 Complete and incomplete grouting

The uniform bedding along the tunnel represents a smooth reduction of the upward force. The
reduction is induced by the grout-lining contact pressure. Nevertheless situations occur when this
reduction is unable to get shape. For instance if free water is located between the tunnel and grout. A
grout-lining contact pressure is prevented. If very liquid grout is used, a reduction is hardly noticed.
On the other hand very stiff grout may result in a similar behaviour. If the tunnel starts to move
upward in this case, the shear yield stress will be exceeded at a later stage or maybe not at all. Hence
a grout flow from the top to the bottom of the tail void is prohibited. A gap between lining and grout
may commence, which fills up with water. So again water prevents a reduction by the grout-lining
contact pressure.
If grout is injected incompletely along the tunnels circumference, no smooth reduction occurs as
well. In all these situations the uniform bedding is omitted in the model. Hence the fictitious top
support only remains. The situations are referred to as incomplete grouting.
Also in case of complete grouting, subtraction of the water content from the grout is of main
importance. Hardened grout will generate a stiff skeleton that supports the tunnel and hence makes
cooperation of the soil and tunnel to bear the ground and water pressures possible. From that
moment on ring behaviour of the embedded tunnel lining takes place. The porosity of sand subtracts
the water from the grout relatively easy. In more dense or saturated soils like clay and peat a long
period of time is required to squeeze out all water and therefore the grouting phase will stay active
for a longer period as well.
4.3 Relation with the lining thickness

This section studies the requirements by bending moments from complete and incomplete grouting
on the required lining thickness for motorway A13/16s tunnel.
4.3.1 Maximum bending moment

The magnitude of the bending moment in the tunnel lining is defined by the extent to which the
upward floating pressure pushes the lining into the fictitious top support of the described model. The
upward floating component is reduced by the tunnels dead weight and by the shear stress in the
grout for both complete and incomplete grouting. In case of complete grouting a smooth
development of the grout-lining contact pressure along the tunnel is possible, in case of incomplete
grouting it isnt. Therefore complete grouting has and incomplete grouting has no uniform bedding
along the full tunnel perimeter. A uniform bedding causes the tunnel ring to be pushed more softly

into the fictitious top bedding; hence the resulting bending moment will be lower for complete
grouting.
The tunnel linings thickness has a major influence on its own dead weight, which reduces the
upward floating pressure. So the thicker the lining, the less pressure is available to push the tunnel
into the top support. For both ordinary concrete C35/45 and very high strength concrete C100/115 the
specific gravity is approximately 24 kN/m, for ultra high strength concrete C180/210 it is 28 kN/m.
As a result the reduction of the upward pressure is more effective for the latter. Which at the end
results in a lower bending moment.
For slender linings the lining stiffness is significantly lower than for thick linings. Therefore in the
model slender linings will be influenced by the relation between the lining stiffness and bedding
stiffness of the fictitious top support. This implies the comparison of concrete strength classes in case
of thin linings might be influenced by their Youngs moduli as well.
The combination of both described mechanisms on the grout bending moment is displayed in Figure
37 for a tunnel depth of 11,1 m (0,7D). The figure shows the resulting moments for complete and
incomplete grouting. Up to a lining thickness of approximately 300 mm the stiffness ratio between
the concrete tunnel lining and fictitious top support for the grout-lining contact pressure obviously
influences the maximum bending moment. The type of concrete with the highest Youngs modulus,
C180/210, returns the largest moments now. However from a thickness of approximately 600 mm its
the dead weight of the tunnel lining that causes the bending moment to descend now with an almost
linear pace. As a result the concrete materials with similar specific gravities, C35/45 and C100/115,
return the same maximum bending moment, independent of their unequal Youngs moduli.
Grout bending moment [kNm]
C100/115
Incomplete grouting
800
C35/45 C180/210
600
400 Complete grouting

C100/115
200 C180/210
C35/45
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
37 | Bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting at a depth of 0,7D
Variations between resulting bending moments for complete and incomplete grouting are a result of
the difference in bedding stiffnesses at the top and bottom for both situations. The differences are
induced by the -factor, which reads:
h
= s s 1
r w
The stiffness ratio between the top and bottom support holds ( + 1) : 1 for complete grouting and
holds : 0 for incomplete grouting. If the soil cover on top of the tunnel increases, the -factor
increases as well. As a result the stiffness ratio for complete grouting approaches the one of
incomplete grouting more and more. Hence the variations in the bending moments for both
situations will decrease at an increasing depth.
At the same time the stiffness ratio for incomplete grouting between the fictitious top support and
the tunnel lining changes as well. The top bedding stiffness increases compared to the lining stiffness.
The resulting bending moment for incomplete grouting therefore reduces at larger depths.
The result is shown in Figure 38. The bending moment by complete grouting (line a) does approach
the descending bending moment by incomplete grouting (line b) more and more as predicted.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
Grout bending moment [kNm]
0D
2000 0,7D
1,2D 1D
4000
Estimated tunnel depth from top [m/m]

(a) (b) (c)
2D
6000
2,9D
3D
8000
10000 4D
4,2D
12000 (a) Complete grouting 5D
(b) Incomplete grouting
14000 6D
(c) Mu,1/20D /
38 | Development bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting over the depth for 675 mm C35/45
The introduction to this chapter discussed the hypothesis that the bending moment capacity of a
lining in reinforced ordinary concrete with thickness 1/20 D might represent the bending moment by
grouting. The exceptional development of the capacity at increasing depths however resulted in the
conclusion that this might not apply to all tunnel depths. Therefore the bending moment capacity has
been shown in Figure 38 once more. Now to verify the assumption (note that the capacity has been
divided by the applied safety factor of 1,5 on resulting bending moments). It turns out that the
bending moment capacity indeed doesnt represent the grout moment at each depth. Especially at
Grouting bending moment [kNm]
C100/115
Incomplete grouting Incomplete grouting
C100/115
800 800
C35/45 C180/210
C180/210 C35/45
600 600
C100/115
400 400
C180/210 C35/45 Complete grouting
200 C35/45 Complete grouting 200 C100/115
Thickness h [mm] C180/210 Thickness h [mm]

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
Incomplete grouting
800 C100/115
C35/45
600 C180/210
400 Complete grouting

C35/45
C100/115
200
C180/210
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
c
39 | Bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting at depths: a) 1,2D; b) 2,9D; c) 4,6D

larger depths the moment by grouting is overestimated. On the other hand the figure also shows that
at a soil overburden of approximately 1D both moments are exactly similar. Depths of 0,5D to 1,5D
are rather common for shield driven tunnels in the Netherlands. The hypothesis in [5] resulted from
calculations on the Botlek Rail Tunnel with a soil cover of more or less 1,4D. It is therefore to be
expected that the bending moment capacity and bending moment by grouting were this close in that
particular tunnel as well. As a result a required lining thickness of approximately 1/20 D would be
found.
For the tunnel of motorway A13/16 the resulting bending moments by complete and incomplete
grouting have been given in Figure 39. Only the remaining depth projections have been shown, refer
to Figure 37 for the results of the most shallow projection.
4.3.2 Bending moment capacity

The normal ring force by the grout pressure from these calculations is no different from the one by
calculations on the ring behaviour of the embedded lining. The function of this normal force is to
make equilibrium with the pressures from the surrounding soil continuum; there is no difference in
these loads.
As a result the bending moment capacities of the lining do not change either, hence the
developments from the previous chapter still apply. These distributions were shown in Figures 29
and 31 already.
4.3.3 Retrieving the required lining thickness

Compared to ring behaviour of an embedded tunnel lining the bending moments resulting from
complete and incomplete grouting are relatively even at various lining thicknesses. Model analyses
in the previous sections demonstrated that this holds for thicker linings especially. The bending
moment capacity however does not alter compared to embedded ring behaviour. It therefore still
shows a steady increase, as shown in the previous chapter.
As a result the bending moment safety factor (ultimate resisting moment divided by the actual
bending moment) now has an ascending development at increasing lining thicknesses. Only at the
shallowest tunnel depths and very thin lining thicknesses a descending safety factor is observed for
incomplete grouting.
In Figure 40 the safety developments of all depth projections and concrete strength classes are given
for complete and incomplete grouting. Obviously the safety level rises dramatically at higher depths.
The resulting bending moment hardly changes, but the bending moment capacity shows a very
significant increase, especially for the higher strength concrete materials C100/115 and C180/210. A
required safety factor for the bending moment of = 1,5 has been introduced to the figure again (the
same factor as used for ring behaviour on an embedded lining). Hence boundary conditions on the
required lining thicknesses can be retrieved once more. The ascending development results in a
lower boundary condition this time. So the actual lining thickness should be greater than or equal to
the value found for grouting.


C35/45
6 6 C35/45
C180/210
5 5
C100/115
4 C100/115 4
C35/45
3 3 C180/210 C180/210
C35/45
2 2 C100/115
= 1,5 = 1,5
1 C100/115 1
C180/210
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b

C180/210
6 Complete grouting 6
5 5 Complete
grouting
4 C100/115 4
C180/210 Incomplete
3 grouting 3 Incomplete
grouting
2 2
= 1,5 = 1,5
5
11
1 1 C35/45
0/
C35/45
10

C
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
c d
40 | Bending moment safety factor for complete and incomplete grouting at depths: a) 0,7D; b) 1,2D; c) 2,9D; d) 4,6D
The resulting lower boundary conditions by complete and incomplete grouting for the required
lining thickness have been listed in Table 5.
Table 5 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of complete and incomplete grouting
C35/45 C100/115 C180/210

Depth Complete Incompl. Complete Incompl. Complete Incompl.
11,1 m (0,7D) 315 mm 725 mm n/a1) 855 mm n/a1) 805 mm
19,3 m (1,2D) 370 mm 640 mm n/a1) 605 mm n/a1) 635 mm
46,7 m (2,9D) 425 mm 535 mm 180 mm2) 365 mm 155 mm 290 mm
74,2 m (4,6D) 525 mm 575 mm 230 mm 320 mm 125 mm 225 mm
1)
No lower boundary condition present within the considered range of lining thicknesses, safety level is exceeded at all
values.
2)
Estimated value
4.4 Conclusions
The bending moment capacity of a standard lining thickness of 1/20 D is not representative for the
resulting bending moment by grouting at all considered depth projections in a tunnel lining of
reinforced ordinary concrete C35/45. Especially at relatively large depths the bending moment is
overestimated. Consequently slightly more slender lining thicknesses might be applied at these
depths if grouting appears to be governing.
The grout pressure in the tail void between tunnel and soil knows a local pressure increase on top of
the tunnel. The bending moment by grouting is defined by the extent in which the tunnel is pushed
into this pressure increment (described as fictitious top support) by the upward floating components

of the grout pressure (consisting of the hydrostatic water pressure and grout-lining contact pressure).
The scale of the local pressure increase depends on the tunnels depth projection.
Incomplete grouting results in significantly higher bending moments in shallow tunnels compared to
complete grouting. However if the tunnel depth increases, the bending moment by complete
grouting approaches the value of incomplete grouting more and more. The absolute value of the
latter will somewhat descend at greater depths.
The resulting bending moment is only slightly dependent on the linings thickness. The stiffness of
the tunnel rings, such as the concrete Youngs modulus and the number of tunnel segments per ring,
do not considerably influence the resulting bending moments.
The weight of the tunnel ring however decreases the net upward floating force and therefore reduces
the extent in which the lining is pushed in the fictitious top support. Especially at high lining
thicknesses this results in a considerable reduction of the resulting bending moment for the heaviest
of all considered concretes, ultra high strength concrete C180/210.
Very and ultra high strength concrete require only very small lining thicknesses at high depths to
cope with the bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting.
At ascending lining thicknesses the bending moment safety level for both complete and incomplete
grouting increases. The lining thickness at the required safety level is therefore a lower boundary
condition of the final required thickness. Table 5 and Figure 41 show all boundary conditions.
0 200 400 600 800 1000

Thickness h [mm]
19,2 0,7D
27,4 1,2D
54,8 2,9D C35/45

C100/115
C180/210
82,2 4,6D
41 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of complete and incomplete grouting

Chapter 5
Additional structural mechanisms
5.1 Introduction
Shield driven tunnels are constructed within the protection of the shield of a tunnel boring machine
(TBM). After assembly of a complete ring, the TBM moves forward by pushing its thrust jacks on the
bearing pads of the newest assembled ring. The high thrust jack forces that are hereby introduced in
the lining result in tensile bursting forces deep in the material and in high compression stresses
under the thrust jack plate. In section 5.2 the relation between the linings thickness and the
introduction of thrust jack forces is investigated.
Moving forward of the tunnel boring machine also causes the one-but-last ring of the lining to leave
the protection of the shield. Now the ring is loaded by the surrounding grout pressure and will start
to deform. The latest ring however is still covered by the shield; hence no loading is present to
initially deform it. As a result tunnel rings close to the TBM are subjected to torque in order to change
the initial circular shape into an ovalised one by the loading with semi-liquid grout. This torsion
phenomenon is also known as the trumpet effect and will be discussed in section 5.3.
5.2 Introduction of thrust jack forces

In the French and German thrust jack configurations the thrust jacks are grouped in pairs of two on a
thrust jack plate. Axial forces are introduced in the tunnel segments via the plates on the bearing
pads of the newest tunnel rings. These axial forces are supposed to be the only forces present, since
the ring is still protected by the TBMs shield and therefore not loaded by grout yet.
Although the values of the introduced thrust jack forces are equal for both European configurations,
they handle different systems to spread out the compression forces in the tunnel segments.
Consequently variations in the tensile bursting stresses occur. In order to spread the thrust jack force
over the segments tangential and radial directions, so-called compression trajectories have to bend
away from the initially axial introduction direction. For the compression trajectories widen now and
point in different directions (see Figure 42a), a tensile force in between them should take care of the
equilibrium of horizontal forces. By help of the lattice analogy, where compression trajectories are
schematised as compression struts, the total resulting tensile force can be determined (Figure 42b).
In case of the French thrust jack configuration this system will occur just like described. By the
applied positioning of thrust jacks on the segment, each jack plate is located at the exact centre line of
its own half of a segment (two thrust jack plates per segment). Now the thrust jack force of each jack
plate is able to spread over the width of its own segmental half and the tensile bursting stresses will
appear as described. The high force introduced and the lateral contraction property of concrete result
in deformations of the segmental shape close to the thrust jacks (see Figure 44a). As a result tensile
stresses will appear in the deformed sections and cracks might occur. However if cracking does occur
the deformation is no longer restricted and the tensile stresses will fade away.
55
disturbance height
compression
schematisation
tension
bursting force
compression
trajectories
a b
42 | Development of bursting stresses. a) Compression trajectories; b) Latice analogy
The German thrust jack configuration has no such decent spreading of compression trajectories over
the full segment. The thrust jack plates in the middle of the segments do not result in any additional
tensile stresses (hence no problems for concrete). The jack force introduced on the edge of the
segment however, over the longitudinal joint, is unable to spread symmetrically to two sides and no
compensating tensile bursting force can be created. Still the force will spread over the only side thats
present. As a consequence of the changed direction of the
trajectories a completely different mechanism to ensure
horizontal equilibrium of forces is introduced. Deep in the
segment a compression strut links the forces of the jacks on the
tension
edge and in the middle. In between the actual introduction spalling force
locations, so just under the segments front face, a tensile
spalling force is created (see Figures 43 and 44b). This tensile
force is a structural force needed for equilibrium, so cracking compression
will not decrease its magnitude. Serious cracking with large 43 | Tensile force in latice analogy for
crack depths may therefore result in the German thrust jack German thrust jack configuration
configuration.
Obviously the French configuration is more effective in spreading the introduced thrust jack forces
from the TBM. This fact contributed to the decision made in Chapter 3 to apply this particular
configuration in the tunnel of motorway A13/16.
This section will discuss the resulting high compressive stresses under the thrust jack plates and the
tensile bursting stresses deeper in the segments by the introduction of thrust jack forces for the
French configuration. First of all the magnitude of this thrust jack force should be determined.
spalling stresses
spalling stresses bursting stresses
bursting stresses compression
French German
Tension Compression
a b
44 | Stress distribution in tunnel segments due to introduction of thrust jack forces in the: a) French and b) German thrust
jack configurations [5, 18]

5.2.1 Magnitude of the thrust jack force
For a long time total thrust jack forces for all jacks combined have been roughly estimated and scaled
based on values for existing tunnels. In a study by De Rijke [12] however a model has been
implemented to determine the forces based on soil properties and dimensions of the tunnel lining
and tunnel boring machine. The so-called TBM Shield Equilibrium Model calculates the resulting
thrust jack forces for each individual tunnel segment. For this a ring with only seven segments is
assumed. A conversion to nine segments per ring will therefore be required in this study.
Most properties for the soil have been discussed in previous chapters already, such as for the
calculations on ring behaviour of an embedded lining. Additionally a friction coefficient between the
soil and TBM shield is required (value of 0,45 for sand follows from tables in [12]), as well as so-
called Ky,front and Ky,side coefficients, which both equal the average of the active and neutral soil
support coefficients Ka and K0:
1 sin
Ka = Ka + K0
1 + sin K y ,front = K y ,side =

K 0 = 1 sin 2
The internal friction angle = 30 was already mentioned in earlier calculations in this report. Hence
it holds:
0 ,33 + 0 ,50
K y ,front = K y ,side = = 0 ,42
2
Dimensions of the tunnel boring machine for the shield driven tunnel of motorway A13/16 are not
known yet. Therefore values from the machine of the Botlek Rail Tunnel from De Rijkes study are
used to make an estimation. Just like in the mentioned machine the external radius of the TBM is 250
mm larger than the one of the shield driven tunnel. The length of the excavation chamber is 2 m and
the length of the shield is 9,9 m. De Rijke also proves that a reduction of the shield length results in a
significant decrease of the actual thrust jack forces. For now however it is not guaranteed that such
shortening can be achieved; hence for this study the conventional length of 9,9 m is assumed.
For a description of the TBM Shield Equilibrium Models principal is referred to the study by De
Rijke [12]. This report will show the final part of the calculation only. Here the principal horizontal
force Hjacks,total and the bending moment Mjacks,total on the machines face for all thrust jack forces
together, which is a result of the mentioned model, are converted to individual thrust jack forces. The
resulting principal forces for the considered tunnel with a lining thickness of 675 mm and a depth
projection of 19,3 m (1,2D) are:
H jacks , total = 1,34 10 5 kN; M jacks, total = 2 ,02 10 4 kNm
These reaction forces can be converted to a distributed load along the tunnels circumference. The
values of this load on the tunnels top and bottom are given by:
M jacks , total H jacks , total
q bottom =
R jacks 2 2 R jacks
H jacks , total
q top = q bottom
R jacks
Where Rjacks is the radius of the jacks centre line, which equals the radius of the centre line for the
tunnel segments. Consequently Rjacks holds for the applied lining thickness:
R jacks = 12 (Di + h ) = 21 (14 ,9 + 0 ,675 ) = 7 ,79 m
This implies that the loads are:

q bottom = 2 ,84 10 3 kN/m; q top = 2 ,63 10 3 kN/m

z
qtop
I
A
B
qmean
y,q
G
D
E
qbottom
45 | TBM Shield Equilibrium Model with line load to determine thrust jack forces
The mean value of the distributed load along the tunnels circumference (qmean) is easy to determine,
just like the variation between the top and bottom values (q):
( )
q mean = 12 q top + q bottom = 2,73 10 3 kN/m
q = q bottom q top = 212 kN/m
At each arbitrary angle in the linings circumference a cumulative force based on the distributed
load can be defined. This cumulative force is given by:
F( ) = R jacks q mean 21 R jacks q cos
If such a force is determined at each longitudinal joint of one individual tunnel segment, the resulting
force by both thrust jack plates on that particular segment is:
Fsegment = F2 F1
Where:
F1 = R jacks q mean 1 12 R jacks q cos 1
F2 = R jacks q mean 2 12 R jacks q cos 2
The axial force on one group of thrust jacks (one thrust jack plate) in this segment is now simply
defined as:
Fgroup = 12 Fsegment
Letters have been appointed to all tunnel segments in Figure 45. Table 6 displays the determined
values and calculation principal of the actual thrust jack forces for the tunnel segments based on the
described method.
Table 6 | Calculation of axial thrust jack forces
Segment 1 [rad] 2 [rad] F1 [kN] F2 [kN] Fgroup [kN]

A (top) 1,75 2,44 -36.970 -51.326 -7.178
B 2,44 3,14 -51.326 -65.978 -7.326
C 3,14 3,84 -65.978 -81.016 -7.519

D 3,84 4,54 -81.016 -96.350 -7.667
E (bottom) 4,54 5,24 -96.350 -111.751 -7.700
F 5,24 5,93 -111.751 -126.958 -7.604
G 5,93 6,63 -126.958 -141.803 -7.423
H 6,63 7,33 -141.803 -156.286 -7.241
I (top) 7,33 8,03 -156.286 -170.575 -7.415
According to the TBM Shield Equilibrium Model the maximum thrust jack force is 7.700 kN for this
tunnel configuration at a depth of 19,3 m (1,2D). Including a safety factor jack = 2 it now holds [4]:
Fjack = jack Fgroup = 2 7.700 = 15.400 kN
The safety factor used is relatively high compared to the factor which has been applied on the
bending moment in prior calculations. The main reason is the uncertainty about original thrust jack
force estimates. However since the model by De Rijke is no longer an estimation, but a calculation
based on soil and TBM properties, a lower safety factor may be suggested. Nevertheless a safety
factor of 2 is still common now and will therefore be used in this study.
If the tunnel lining thickness increases, the external diameter of the TBM increases as well.
Consequently the maximum thrust jack force grows (see Figure 46a). For the tunnel embedded in soil
(Chapter 3) the normal force developed directly proportional to the depth of its centre. For the thrust
jack force there is nothing different, as Figure 46b shows.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000

-13500
thickness h [mm] Thrust jack force [kN]
-14000
19,2 (0,7D)
-14500 27,4 (1,2D)
-15000
Thrust jack force [kN]
54,8 (2,9D)
-15500
-16000
82,2 (4,6D)
a b
46 | Development thrust jack forces over: a) Lining thicknesses for depth of 1,2D; b) Tunnel depth
5.2.2 Compressive stresses beneath the thrust jack plates

As a result of the axial thrust jack forces high compressive stresses occur in the concrete under the
jack plates. These stresses are given by:
Fjack Fjack
c , jack = =
A jack a l a b
Where a l and a b are the length and width of the thrust jack plate.
In Chapter 3 it has been mentioned that the estimated dimensions of the thrust jack plates are based
on dimensions used in the Green Heart Tunnel. The width of the plate therefore is 1.500 mm and its
height is of the lining thickness. Hence it holds:
a l = 1.500 mm; a b = 23 h
In the determination of the thrust jack forces a tunnel lining thickness of 675 mm and a soil cover of
19,3 m (1,2D) were given as an example. By reapplying this model the stress under the thrust jack
plate is given by:

Fjack 15 ,4 10 6 N
c , jack = = = 22 ,8 MPa (14)
a la b 1.500 23 h mm 2
The maximum allowed compressive stress under the jack plates is known in the Dutch code NEN
6720 as fco. Hence the following requirement should be met at any time:
c , jack f'co
According to the code the maximum allowed compressive stress is given by:
lb
f' co = f' c (15)
ala b
Where fc is the design value of the compressive strength for concrete and l and b are the length and
width of the segmental cross-section over which the thrust jack force will spread in the end.
The latter dimensions are defined by the minimum values of:
a l + 2sl a b + 2s b
a +d a +d
l b
l = min and b = min
5a l 5a b
5b a l 5l a b
Dimension d is the height of the so-called disturbance area and sl and s b are the differences
between the length and width respectively of the thrust jack plate and half the area available for
spreading (see Figure 47).
sl al sb ab
a l + 2s l a b + 2s b
A-A' A-A'
47 | Definitions schematised stress distribution under a thrust jack plate
For the tunnel with a lining thickness of 675 mm the dimension a l + 2sl , that equals half the
segmental length, and a b + 2s b is given by:
(Di + h ) (14.900 + 675 )
a l + 2sl = l segm / 2 = = = 2.718 mm
2 n segm 18
a b + 2s b = h
Tunnel segments transmit the axial thrust jack force to older rings via bearing pads in the ring joint.
These pads are situated right behind the thrust jack plates. So only half of the segmental dimension
in axial direction is available for spreading the force. The other half is used to narrow the spread
force again in order to lead it to the bearing pads (see Figure 47). Therefore the disturbance length d
is half the segmental width:
2.000
d= = 1.000 mm
2
Determination of all remaining parameters is possible now:

2.718 1.500 h 23 h 1
sl = = 609 mm; s b = =6h
2 2
a l + 2s l = 2.718 mm
a + d = 2.500 mm
l
l = min = 2.500 mm
5 a l = 7 .500 mm
5 b( a l ) = 3.375 mm
a b + 2s b = h
a + d = 2 h + 1.000 mm if h 3.000 mm h 3.000 mm
b h
b = min = 2 b = h
3
5 a b = 3 1
3 h 3 h + 1 .000 mm if h > 3.000 mm
5l( a b ) = 12.500 mm
Accordingly parameter b equals the lining thickness h for all thicknesses considered. The governing
value for parameter l however varies within the considered range. The following definition applies:
a l + 2s l
a + d a l if h 300 mm
l
l = min = 5h if 300 < h < 500 mm
5a l a + d if h 500 mm
5 b( a l ) l
The maximum value of the permitted compressive stress is now defined by substitution of all
parameters in equation (15):
f'c 1,5 if h 300 mm

lh h
f'co = f'c == f'c if 300 < h < 500 mm (16)
1.500 23 h 10 2
f'c 2 ,5 if h 500 mm

For a lining thickness of 675 mm the permitted values for the three concrete strength classes are:
f'co , C 35 / 45 = f'c ,C 35 / 45 2 ,5 = 0 ,6 45 1,58 = 43 MPa
f'co , C100 / 115 = 0 ,6 115 1,58 = 109 MPa
f'co , C180 / 210 = 0 ,6 210 1,58 = 199 MPa
In Figure 48 the development of these values along an ascending lining thickness has been included.
From a comparison of the permitted stresses and the actual compressive stress by the introduction of
thrust jack forces in equation (14) (22,8 MPa), it appears that all concrete strength classes are able to
cope with the compressive stresses under the thrust jack plate in case of a lining thickness of 675 mm
and a depth projection of 19,3 m (1,2D).
Equation (14) also shows that the resulting compressive stress for constant thrust jack forces is
related to the inverse lining thickness and will therefore decrease with an asymptotic extent at
increasing thicknesses. However the real thrust jack force of thick linings is slightly larger than the
one of slender linings (Figure 46a). Nevertheless the global development of the resulting concrete
compressive stress is hardly assaulted by this variation, as Figure 48 proves.
The locations where the lines of the actual and permitted values meet demonstrate that the minimum
required lining thicknesses for the concrete strength classes are:
h 390 mm for C35/45
h 175 mm for C100/115
h 100 mm for C180/210

0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
h [mm]
-20
f'co,C35/45
-40
-60
-80
-100 f'co,C100/115
Stress c,jack [MPa]
-120
-140
-160
-180
f'co,C180/210
48 | Compressive stress under thrust jack plates for a depth of 1,2D
If the depth projection of the tunnel increases, the thrust jack force grows as well (see Figure 46b).
Consequently the concrete compressive stress under the thrust jack plate ascends accordingly. No
changes occur in the permitted compressive strength, irrespective of the depth. The occurring
stresses for all four considered tunnel depths and the permitted stresses for all three materials have
been combined in Figure 49a. Again minimum required lining thicknesses can be isolated, which
have been included in Figure 49b.
Obviously concretes with a higher compressive strength require significantly thinner tunnel linings
to cope with the compressive stresses introduced by thrust jack forces. Especially in very deep
tunnels the advantage of C100/115 and C180/210 is clearly visible. At the end this may turn out to be
a very positive property of very and ultra high strength concrete, since these materials manifested
splendid behaviour for deep tunnels in calculations on the uplift loading case in the previous chapter
as well.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
f'co,C35/45 h [mm] thickness h [mm]
-50 0,7D
-100 f'co,C100/115 19,2

1,2D 27,4
deeper
-150
2,9D f'co,C180/210 C35/45
-200
Stress c,jack [MPa]
C180
-250 54,8
4,2D
/210
-300 C100/115
-350
82,2 4,6D
a b
49 | Introduction of thrust jack forces over the depth. a) Compressive stress under thrust jack plate; b) Required lining
thicknesses
5.2.3 Tensile bursting stresses

The introduction to this chapter already described that bursting tensile stresses are generated by
spreading of the thrust jack forces (compression trajectories) in tunnel segments. The extent of the
spreading and therefore the magnitude of the tensile stresses strongly depends on the variations
between the dimensions of the introduction and final spreading surfaces.
This relation has been described by Iyengar in a diagram (see Figure 51). In this diagram the
development of tensile bursting stresses (as a fraction of the fully spread compressive stress) over the
depth of the segment is shown for various interrelations of the introduction width () and the
spreading width (a). Spreading of the introduced force occurs in one direction only, namely in the x-y
plane of the figure. Nevertheless dimensions of the thrust jack plates are smaller than the dimensions
of the tunnel segment in both radial and tangential direction; hence tensile bursting stresses in both
directions should be considered.

t = 1.500 r = 2
3
h
at1 = 1.000
ar = h
ar = h
A-A' A-A'
tangential radial
50 | Spreading of compression trajectories in tangential and radial direction in tunnel segments
In the radial direction of the tunnel segments, the introduction width is restricted to the height of the
thrust jack plates, the spreading width is the thickness of the concrete segments. Hence:
r = 23 h r 2
=3
ar = h ar
In Iyengars diagram a ratio between the maximum radial tensile bursting stress cr and the spread
compressive stress cm is found, reading:
cr
= 0 ,15
cm
cx
cm 0,5
Fjack
y cm =
a =0 ab
cx
Fjack a x
0,4 0,1
cy
0,2
a b
a =0,3
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,2
0,17 0,6
0,15 0,67
0,7
0,1 0,8
0,9
x
a
0
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1,0
51 | Diagram of Iyengar for tensile bursting stresses due to introduction of thrust jack forces
In order to determine the final spread compressive stress cm both the spreading height and width
are required. The spreading height (in radial direction) has been retrieved already and equals the
lining thickness, or segmental thickness. Determination of the spreading length (in tangential

direction) however is more complicated. Iyengars definition of dimensions as presented in Figure 51
assumes that the introduced compression force is completely spread over the full cross-section after a
distance that equals the spreading width a. During the calculations on the compressive force below
the thrust jack plates it came forward that only half of the segmental width (hence 1.000 mm, also see
Figure 50) is available as a spreading depth. The tangential width of the jack plate however is 1.500
mm (t in Figure 50) and is therefore larger than the spreading depth (at1 in the figure) at all time.
This is impossible according to the normal definition. As a result an alternative method should be
used to retrieve the spreading distance in tangential direction.
Maximum spreading in Iyengars diagram occurs if = 0. Over the full spreading depth a, the
trajectories should spread over a distance of a/2 to either side. So maximum spreading of the
introduced thrust jack force on the sides of the jack plates holds a/2 as well. In this expression a
equals at1 from Figure 50 in this case. Consequently the maximum spreading length in tangential
direction of the thrust jack force is:
a t = t + a t 1 = 1.500 + 1.000 = 2.500 mm
This dimension is smaller than half the segmental length ((Di + h)/9 = 2.720 mm for h = 675 mm)
and is therefore thought to be critial for the spreading length.
The complete spreading area is known now, so the compressive stress after full spreading may be
retrieved by use of the definition from Figure 51:
Fjack Fjack Fjack
cm = = =
ab a ra t 2.500h
Subsequently the ratio between the tangential tensile bursting stresses and the spread compressive
stress is found as well. According to the diagram it is given by:
t = 1.500 t
= 0 ,6
a t = 2.500 at
Tensile bursting stresses in radial and tangential direction are now determined by:
0 ,15Fjack Fjack
cr = cr cm = =
cm 2.500 h 16 ,7 10 3 h
0 ,17 Fjack Fjack
ct = ct cm = =
cm 2.500h 14 ,7 10 3 h
The thrust jack force Fjack has a positive value under compression, for it points in the direction
defined by Figure 51.
Similar to the development of the compressive stress under the thrust jack plates, the tensile bursting
forces due the jack force introduction are related to the inverse lining thickness as well. Figure 52
shows both resulting stresses for an overburden of 19,3 m (1,2D).
Bursting stresses cr/ct [MPa]
fc,C180/210
8
ct
6 cr
fc,C100/115
2 fc,C35/45
h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
52 | Radial and tangential tensile bursting stresses due to the introduction of thrust jack forces

In case no additional steel bar reinforcement is included, the following requirement should be met:
cr fc and ct fc
Where fc is the design value of the tensile strength for concrete. These values hold 1,65 MPa (NEN
6720), 5 MPa and 9,1 MPa for concrete materials C35/45, C100/115 and C180/210 respectively.
For the applied relation between the height and width of the thrust jack plate on one side and the
dimensions of the tunnel segment on the other side, tensile bursting stresses in the tangential
direction are governing. Figure 52 thereby returns the following minimum required lining
thicknesses for the tunnel in order to resist tensile stresses by the introduction of thrust jack forces at
a depth of 19,3 m (1,2D):
h 635 mm for C35/45
h 195 mm for C100/115
h 105 mm for C180/210
Apparently the lining thicknesses required by the tensile stresses are higher than the ones dictated by
compression under the thrust jack plates (also see Figure 48). In case of reinforced ordinary concrete
C35/45 however the possibility exists to include rebars to deal with the tensile stresses. Hence for this
material the lining thickness required by the resulting compression stresses is governing.
Again the actual thrust jack force is the only input parameter of the calculations that depends on the
tunnels depth projection. In Figure 53a the resulting tangential tensile bursting stresses are
presented. The required lining thicknesses of the considered concrete materials are shown in Table 7
and Figure 53b.
0 200 400 600 800 1000

Bursting stress ct [MPa]
thickness h [mm]
25
4,2D
19,2
20
2,9D 27,4
C35/45
15
10 1,2D fc,C180/210
C1 8
54,8
0,7D
0/21
fc,C100/115
5 C100/115
0
fc,C35/45
h [mm]
0 82,2 4,6D
200 400 600 800 1000
a b
53 | Introduction of thrust jack forces over the depth. a) Maximum tangential tensile bursting stresses; b) Required lining
thickness per concrete strength class by bursting stresses
Table 7 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses by the introduction of thrust jack forces
C35/45 C100/115 C180/210

Depth Compr. Tension Compr. Tension Compr. Tension
11,1 m (0,7D) 315 460 125 140 n/a1) n/a1)
19,3 m (1,2D) 390 635 175 195 100 100
46,7 m (2,9D) 680 12602) 315 380 175 200
74,2 m (4,6D) 10302) 18802) 410 575 260 305
1)
No boundary condition within the considered range of lining thicknesses, safety level exceeds the required level at all
time.
2)
Values have been determined by extrapolation

5.3 Torsion in tunnel segments by the trumpet effect
At the back of the tunnel boring machine a tunnel ring leaves the protection of the TBM-shield as the
machine excavates and moves forward. Thereby that particular ring is loaded by the pressures of
fresh injected grout and starts to deform. Rings which are still protected by the TBM shield are not
loaded yet. If it is assumed that these rings in the machine behold their circular shape, the segments
in the ring leaving the TBM will twist in order to adapt to the ovalised shape by the grout loading
(see Figure 54). Because of the vertical narrowing of the tunnel ring, this mechanism is also known as
the trumpet effect.
Torsion in the twisted segments is a consequence of forced deformations. It is therefore not a direct
failure mechanism; it only leads to possible cracking hence damage. This type of cracks however has
been observed quite frequently during the construction of existing shield driven tunnels. A
comparison of the considered concrete strength classes is therefore interesting, in order to find out
whether this type of damage is possible to occur in very and ultra high strength concrete as well.
TBM shield Grout loading

Lt
A A
Protected
Deformed segments
segment
Change of shape at top of the ring (side view)
B
Initial circular shape
Segments
Grout loading subjected to
TBM shield
torsion
B
Protected Deformed segments
Ovalised shape segment
Change of shape at the side of the ring (top view)

54 | Torsion in tunnel segments by deformation due to grout loading
5.3.1 Torsion capacity of the lining

In a horizontally ovalised tunnel (lying egg) the maximum diameter shortening by the ovalisation
deformations is observed in vertical direction (diameter between top and bottom of the tunnel), the
maximum diameter enlargement occurs in horizontal direction (als see Figure 54). As a result the
torsion problem can be restricted to a distance between locations with maximum (top) and minimum
(at an angle of /4 from the top) deformations. The torsional length Lt is therefore given by:
(r + 21 h)
Lt =
4
Where r is the inner radius and h is the lining thickness.
The torsional distance in axial direction determines the amount of damage to a big extent. The exact
distance is not known however. Depending on the interaction of rings in this direction possibly one
or perhaps multiple segmental widths are required to generate the deformation. The torsion width is
therefore indicated as Bt for now.
't
u2
Bt
55 | Rotation of tunnel segment in vertical plane

In the vertical plane of the tunnels longitudinal direction (axial-radial plane) the tunnel segments
subjected to torsion will rotate over an angle of t (see Figure 55). This angle is defined as:
u
't = 2
Bt
Herein u2 is the maximum ovalisation deformation (half the diameter shortening) caused by the
grout loading case.
Per unit of length along the tunnel circumference the torsion angle is given by:
' 4u 2
t = t =
L t b(r + 21 h)
The torsional moment is generally defined as:

T = GI t t
With G being the shear modulus of concrete and It the torsional moment of inertia:
E h
G= ; I t = 13 Bth 3 1 0 ,6 with h < Bt
2(1 + ) Bt
Where E is the Youngs modulus and is the Poisson ratio of concrete.
The torsional moment creates a linear shear stress in the concrete tunnel segments. Its maximum
value at the top and bottom of the segments is given by:
T
t = (17)
Wt
Where Wt is the elastic torsional modulus:
1
B h2
Wt = 3 t again with h < Bt
h
1 + 0 ,6
Bt
If its assumed that the shear stress t is the only stress present (hence stresses by the thrust jack
forces are omitted for now), the shear stress is a principal tensile stress and therefore should not
exceed the tensile strength fshr:
t < fshr
Substitution of the parameters in equation (17) gives the torsional shear stress:
E h 4u 2

3 B t h 1 0 ,6
1 3

GI t t 2(1 + ) Bt b(r + 21 h) 2Ehu2 h2 2Ehu 2
t = = = 1 0 ,36 2 =
Wt 1
B h 2
B ( r + 1
h )(1 + ) B B (r + 1 h)(1 + )
3 t t 2 144244 t
3 t 2
h 1
1 + 0 ,6
Bt
Hence it also holds:

2Ehu 2 B f (r + 21 h)(1 + )
t < fshr < fshr u 2 < t shr (18)
Bt (r + 2 h)(1 + )
1
2Eh
According to the Dutch building code NEN 6720 the mean tensile strength fcm is the boundary
condition for tensile stresses for calculations on cracks. Hence:
fshr = fcm = 1,4fcrep = 1,4(1,4fc ) = 2fc (19)
The maximum permissible deformation to prevent cracking by torsion appears to depend on several
concrete properties is presented in equations (18) and (19) (note that the Poisson ratios are similar for
all considered concrete strength classes):

fc
u2 ~
E
Consequently this results in the following relation for the three types of concrete:
u 2 ~ 1,65/33.500 = 4,9 10-5 for C35/45
u 2 ~ 5,0/45.000 = 11 10-5 for C35/45
u 2 ~ 9,1/65.000 = 14 10 -5 for C35/45
Accordingly C180/210 is able to resist deformations with a magnitude of almost triple the ones for
C35/45 before cracking occurs. The bending moment by grouting was found not to depend on the
concrete stiffness in the previous chapter. As a result the higher Youngs moduli for very and ultra
high strength concrete ensure smaller deformations at similar lining thicknesses and bending
moments than for ordinary concrete. Hence the capacity to prevent cracking is higher and the actual
deformations are lower, an advantage of very and ultra high strength concrete.
The permitted value of deformation u2 is nearly proportional to the inverse of the lining thickness
according equation (18). If the torsion width Bt is assumed to be one segmental width (2 m) [5], the
development of the permitted value is as shown in Figure 56.
Maximum deflection u2 [mm]
80
60
C180/210
40
C100/115
20
C35/45
h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
56 | Maximum allowed deformation u2 due to torsion only in tunnel segments
Influence of thrust jack forces

In this chapter has been discussed before that thrust jacks from the TBM introduce large forces into
the concrete tunnel segments. This force is transmitted to older rings by bearing pads in the ring
joints. Therefore the axial force will be present in the twisted tunnel segments as well. Such a multi-
axial stress pattern is described by Mohrs circle (Figure 57). This circle translates the multi-axial
stresses in the principal compressive stress 1 and principal tensile stress 2. From the circle these
principal stresses are defined by:
1,2 = 1
2 ( xx )
+ yy 1
4 ( xx yy )
2
+ tj 2
Stresses xx and yy represent the maximum tensile bursting stress and the compression stress
respectively due to the introduction of thrust jack forces. If it is assumed that torsion may occur to
tunnel segments within the TBM occasionally, no normal ring force is present. Hence stresses by the
thrust jack forces and torsion are the only stresses in Mohrs circle. Then parameter tj is the shear
force by torsion, now defined by:
tj = xy = yx

Fjack yx
direction
T principal stress 2 (yy,yx)
direction
principal stress 1
y 2 1 xx,yy
yy
yx
xy
x
(xx,xy)
xx
xy
a b
57 | Multi-axial stresses in twisted tunnel segments. a) Definition of stresses; b) Mohrs cirle
The principal tensile stress by the multi-axial stresses is restricted by boundary fshr again:
1 = 1
2 ( xx + yy + ) 1
4 ( xx yy ) 2
+ tj 2 fshr
If fshr equals fcm, the maximum allowed value for shear force tj can by isolated by:
( ( ))
fcm 12 xx + yy 14 xx yy 2 + tj2
2
( )
fcm 2 + 1
4 ( xx
2
) (
+ yy 2 + 2 xx yy xx + yy fcm ) 1
2 ( xx
2
)
2
+ yy 2 2 xx yy + tj 2
(
tj fcm 2 fcm xx + yy + xx yy )
Values for stresses xx and yy result from the calculations on tensile bursting stresses in the previous
section. At a depth projection of 19,3 m (1,2D) the admissible value for shear force by grouting tj now
develops as presented in Figure 58. Obviously the allowed values for very and ultra high strength
concrete benefit from the introduced compressive forces in thin linings in particular. As a
consequence even higher deformations are allowed. If the initial concrete tensile strength fshr is
replaced by tj these deformations are described by equation (18) once more:
Bt tj (r + 21 h )(1 + )
u2 <
2Eh
If concrete is unable to cope with the combined compressive and tensional stresses by the
introduction of thrust jack forces, the permissible value of tj reduces to zero. Thats what occurs at a
lining thickness of approximately 300 mm for ordinary concrete C35/45 in Figure 58. Evidently the
tunnel segments are unable to resist any deformation u2 now. At deeper tunnel projections this
phenomenon will appear for the other concrete strength classes as well. In Figure 59 the permitted
displacements have been visualised for all considered depths. Higher compressive and tensile
bursting stresses at higher depths result in a decrease of the local peaks at slender lining thicknesses.

Stresses tj and fcm [mm]
30
25 tj,C180/210
20 fcm,C180/210
15 tj,C100/115
fcm,C100/115
10
5 tj,C35/45
fcm,C35/45
h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
58 | Allowed shear stress tj at a depth of 1,2D
Permitted deformation u2 [mm]

100 100
C180/210
80 80
C180/210
60 60
40 40
C100/115 C100/115
20 20
C35/45 C35/45
h [mm] h [mm]
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
Permitted deformation u 2 [mm]
100 100
80 80
C180/210
60 60 C180/210
40 40
20 C100/115 20
C100/115
C35/45 h [mm] C35/45 h [mm]
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
c d
59 | Development of allowed deflection u2 at depths: a) 0,7D; b) 1,2D; c) 2,9D; d) 4,6D
5.3.2 Torsion displacements in the uplift loading case

Bending moments in complete and incomplete grouting have different developments, as described in
the previous chapter. Deformations resulting by the linings ovalisation will follow the development
of bending moments to a high extent. Resulting bending moments by incomplete grouting slightly
decreased at higher tunnel depths. On the other hand bending moments by complete grouting
increased at higher depths, but were very low at shallow projections. Bending moments hardly
depended on the concretes properties. Therefore, variations of the deformations for all considered
concrete strength classes only depend on the concrete Youngs modulus.
Figure 60 indeed shows such a development of the ovalisation deformations for a lining thickness of
675 mm. At this particular lining thickness ordinary concrete C35/45 is incapable of resisting the

resulting stresses by the introduction of thrust jack forces at the deepest tunnel projection. Hence no
deformation has been given there.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deformation u2 [mm]
19,2 0,7D
27,4 1,2D C35/45 C35/45
Incomplete grouting
54,8 2,9D
Complete
C180/210
grouting
C100/115
82,2 4,6D
60 | Development of actual deflections due to ovalisation of tunnel in the uplift loading case for a lining thickness of 675 mm
A reduction of the lining thickness significantly reduces the linings total stiffness (EI) against
deformations. Consequently the deformation for slender lining thicknesses increases dramatically.
The small reduction of the bending moment by incomplete grouting that has been observed at very
slender linings is of hardly any help. Figure 61 shows the principal.
Actual deformation u2 [mm]
C100/115
250
C180/210
200 C35/45
150 C100/115
C35/45
100
C180/210
50
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
61 | Deflections by complete and incomplete grouting at overburden of 19,3 m (1,2D)
The dimension available for torsion in the tunnels axial direction (Bt) is set to one segmental width
again. A safety factor for the resistance against cracking by torsion in the trumpet effect is defined as
the permissible value of deformation u2 divided by the actual occurring deformations due to the
uplift loading case. Figure 62 contains the development of this safety factor for incomplete grouting
at a depth of 19,3 m (1,2D). Apparently the more flexible behaviour of thin linings (resulting in high
permissible deformations as presented in Figure 59b) is unable to compensate the larger increment of
the occurring deformations at these thicknesses (Figure 61). Consequently very large lining
thicknesses are required to prevent cracking by torsion. This does not hold for ordinary concrete
C35/45 only, which is unable to prevent cracking without applying additional rebars in the
considered range of thicknesses anyway. However it does hold for the steel fibre reinforced concretes
very and ultra high strength concrete. At greater tunnel depths the occurring ovalisation
deformations by incomplete grouting slightly descend. At thick linings however the permitted value
hardly changes (except for C35/45 at the deepest location). Consequently the minimum required
lining thickness for torsion cracks by incomplete grouting descends at an increasing depth projection.
Table 8 and Figure 64 show that development.

Safety factor torsion
3
C180/210
2
C100/115
=1
1
C35/45
Thickness h [mm]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
62 | Safety factor for incomplete grouting against cracking by torsion for an overburden of 1,2D
Table 8 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses to prevent cracks by the trumpet effect
C35/45 C100/115 C180/210

Depth Complete Incompl. Complete Incompl. Complete Incompl.
11,1 m (0,7D) 760 1255 435 780 255 565
19,3 m (1,2D) 890 1230 550 770 365 555
46,7 m (2,9D) 980 1115 583 700 375 510
74,2 m (4,6D) 1110 1170 560 655 295 460
5.4 Conclusions
Introduction of thrust jack forces

The thrust jack force from the tunnel boring machine increases directly proportional to the tunnels
depth. An ascending lining thickness results in a slight enlargement of the tunnels diameter; this
causes an increment of the resulting thrust jack force linear to the additional diameter, which is only
relatively small compared to the increment of the lining thickness.
High compressive concrete stresses occur under the thrust jack plates by the introduction of the jack
forces. In case of the French thrust jack configuration tensile bursting stresses deeper in the segment
below the jack plates are the only structural tensile stresses resulting from the introduction.
Provided that the height of the thrust jack plates is linked to the lining thickness, the thrust jack force
only slightly increases if the jack plates height grows. The resulting stresses however descend at a
more extensive rate; hence the safety level increases at an ascending lining thickness.
The required lining thickness in order to cope with the tensile bursting stresses in tangential direction
is governing above the required thicknesses by the compressive stresses. In reinforced ordinary
concrete it is assumed that reinforcement bars will be utilised to cope with the tensile forces, as a
result the compressive stresses are governing for this material.
Required thicknesses for very and ultra high strength concrete are significantly lower than for
reinforced ordinary concrete. From a depth projection of approximately 50 m (3D) a larger lining
thickness is required for C35/45 than the thickness of 1/20 D from the commonly applied rule of
thumb.
All required lining thicknesses by the introduction of thrust jack forces have been shown in Figure
63.

0 200 400 600 800 1000
_ compressive stress Thickness h [mm]
+ tensile bursting stress
19,2
27,4 +
C35/45
_ unreinforced
54,8 2,9D +
_ + C35/45
_
82,2 4,6D
C180/210 C100/115
63 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses by the introduction of thrust jack forces
Torsion by the trumpet effect

If tunnel segments leave the protection of the tunnel boring machines shield, theyre loaded by the
grout pressure. As a result the initial circular shape will ovalise, causing torsion in these tunnel
segments. Stresses by torsion result in principal tensile stresses.
Stresses by the introduction of thrust jack forces positively affect the permissible torsinal shear stress
up to a certain depth.
The ovalisation deformations are defined by the tunnels diameter alteration during complete or
incomplete grouting. These deformations decrease at a growing tunnel depth. If thinner linings are
applied the resulting deformation will increase dramatically. Therefore the safety against cracking by
torsion increases at an ascending lining thickness.
Required lining thicknesses to prevent cracking are very high for all considered concrete strength
classes. If the standard lining thickness of 1/20 D is applied for ordinary concrete cracking will occur
if no additional reinforcement is used to prevent this.
Figure 64 gives all boundary conditions for the required lining thickness in order to prevent cracking
by the torsional trumpet effect in case of both complete and incomplete grouting.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
(ic) Incomplete grouting Thickness h [mm]

(c) Complete grouting
19,2 0,7D
27,4 1,2D
(c) (ic)
54,8 2,9D
(c) (ic)
(c) (ic)
82,2 4,6D
C180/210 C100/115 C35/45
64 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses to prevent cracks by the trumpet effect

Chapter 6
Evaluation lining thickness reduction
6.1 Introduction
Relations between several failure mechanisms and the required lining thickness for shield driven
tunnels were investigated in the previous chapters. Each individual mechanism resulted in a
boundary condition on the required lining thickness in order to cope with the forces or bending
moments from that mechanism. Four different depth projections for the potential tunnel of future
motorway A13/16 in Rotterdam were considered.
This chapter will bring all boundary conditions on the lining thickness together, in order to find a
minimum required thickness that meets the requirements by all mechanisms. Section 6.2 will deal
with this. Consequently will be visible what, considered a certain depth projection, the governing
mechanism for the tunnel is. For long a discussion is going on about this question of governing
behaviour in the design of shield driven tunnels. Perhaps this report may give some help to come to
a conclusion in that discussion. More interesting however is to find a way to reduce the influence of
the governing mechanism(s) and so to reduce the lining thickness even more. Section 6.3 will shortly
discuss some alterations of the considered tunnel which might lead to this goal, focussed on the high
strength steel fibre reinforced concretes.
6.2 Importance of the construction phase

In this report requirements on the lining thickness for the shield driven tunnel of motorway A13/16
were given by the bending moment for ring behaviour of an embedded tunnel lining, the bending
moment for complete and incomplete grouting, the tensile and compressive stresses by the
introduction of thrust jack forces and the principal tensile stress by torsion in the segments during
the grouting phase. Figures 65 to 67 show the collection of boundary conditions on the lining
thickness for the concrete strength classes C35/45, C100/115 and C180/210 respectively.
If the design of a shield driven tunnels lining thickness is based on the strength related boundary
conditions, it is restricted by the conditions for incomplete grouting, the introduction of thrust jack
forces and the embedded ring behaviour for all concrete strength classes considered. A so-called ULS
area is presented in the diagrams, restricted by these boundary conditions. In ordinary concrete
reinforcement bars have to be applied to take care of the tensile stresses by the introduction of thrust
jack forces.
The bending moment by incomplete grouting is governing at shallow tunnel depths. At deeper
projections the lining thickness is dictated by the introduction of thrust jack forces. For ordinary
concrete a lower boundary results from calculations on the structures embedded ring behaviour as
well at very large depths.
However, cracks by torsion are still likely to occur within these ULS areas. In ordinary concrete
C35/45 cracks will show up at lining thicknesses below approximately 1.100 mm. Very high strength
concrete C100/115 cracks at thicknesses lower than 700-800 mm. Finally C180/210 will crack below
approximately 500 mm.
The implications of governing behaviour by the mentioned mechanisms will be discussed in this
section.
75
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Thickness h [mm]
ja jac
19,2 0,7D ck ks
ten
pl.
s s.
co
om
27,4 1,2D m
pr
l.
grout
inc
.
mp
ion
nco
comp
tors
ut i
g ro
tor
l.
54,8 2,9D
sio
nc
ring
beha
om
v iour
pl.
82,2 4,6D
65 | Boundary conditions on lining thickness for C35/45
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Thickness h [mm]
19,2 0,7D
27,4 1,2D
mpl.
jac
torsion co
ks
.
pl
inco
j ac
m
ten
co
ks
s.
in
n
t
co
torsio
ou
mpl.
mp
gr
54,8 2,9D
r.
grou
io ur
ehav
t com
b
ring
pl.
82,2 4,6D
66 | Boundary conditions on lining thickness for C100/115
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Thickness h [mm]
to
19,2 rsi
o nc
jack cks com
om
27,4
p l.
s te
ja
pl.
ns.
m
co
t in
rou
g
pr.
l.
54,8 2,9D
incomp
ring behaviour
mpl.
grout co
torsion
82,2 4,6D
67 | Boundary conditions on required lining thickness for C180/210
An economic design of a certain structure is commonly described as that the structures construction
phase may not be governing in stead of its serviceability phase. The serviceability phase is mainly
included by the bending moment in ring behaviour of the embedded lining. This bending moment
however results in an upper boundary condition of the required lining thickness. In other words:
only in case of large lining thicknesses this element of the serviceability phase will be governing. A
better description of the most economic design of a shield driven tunnel should therefore focus on
the smallest possible lining thickness in the construction phase.

6.2.1 Torsion by trumpet effect governing
Torsion by the trumpet effect in the tunnel segments during the construction phase leads to very
large required lining thicknesses according to the presented diagrams. The required lining
thicknesses for reinforced ordinary concrete C35/45 never becomes as low as the value of 1/20 D (750
mm) given by the commonly applied rule of thumb for the lining thickness of shield driven tunnels.
Therefore it appears that cracks by the trumpet effect will appear in the tunnel segments if the
thickness of 1/20 D is still applied. The use of reinforcement bars in the expected cracking zones may
significantly reduce the development of large crack widths.
On the other hand torsion by the trumpet effect only occurs in an extremely small period of time
compared to the tunnels full life span. Only if the considered ring is pushed out of the tunnel boring
machine this type of torsion occurs. The part out of the TBM ovalises by the pressures from the grout,
although deformation on the part within the machine is prevented by the newer ring which is not
loaded at all. As the excavation process moves on the newer ring will ovalise as well, that implies
that the deformation differences and therefore torsion fade away. Subsequently the cracks formed
will be compressed and might completely close.
Torsion is a result of a forced deformation of the considered ring. Cracks resulting from such
mechanism are damage, but do not lead to a direct loss of the tunnels structural safety and thereby
to potential failure. Therefore the question should be raised whether or not cracks by the trumpet
effect are acceptable. The diagrams in Figures 65 to 67 that show by means of the ULS area that this
leads to a significant reduction of the required lining thickness and cost saving. Of course one should
remember that damage caused by cracks may lead to a reduction of the tunnels durability over time.
Some relatively simple adjustments of the tunnels construction process might lead to a reduction of
crack formation by torsion. For instance if more rings are located within the TBM shield the
ovalisation deformations are spread over multiple rings and consequently cracks are reduced.
Nevertheless this implies an enlargement of the shields length that results in higher thrust jack
forces according to section 5.2.1. For ultra high strength concrete an increase of this force is no
problem at all, since only at very deep projections the thrust jack force is governing. A large grow of
the thrust jack force might lead to governing behaviour of this force for ordinary concrete at
shallower depths.
In practice so-called adjusters are occasionally used as well. These steel trusses are placed within a
new ring to prevent it from deforming up to a certain level. Consequently the ovalisation
deformations are gradually introduced to the tunnel segments in multiple rings. If the full
deformation is present the adjusters are removed.
Finally an optimised grouting regime can be used to prevent ovalisation of the tunnel. For that
purpose grout pressures have to be varied along the tunnels perimeter. If the tunnel intents to
deform as a lying egg higher grout pressures are applied on the sides in order to force it into its
original circular shape again.
6.2.2 Grouting phase and introduction of thrust jack forces governing

Provided that torsional cracks are prevented or else are considered as an acceptable case of damage,
other failure mechanisms will be governing for the minimum lining thickness. In case of shallow
tunnels this holds for the bending moment by incomplete grouting for all considered concrete
strength classes. For deeper tunnel projections the mechanism for introduction of thrust jack forces
will lead to the required thickness. For reinforced conventional concrete it is assumed that
reinforcement bars will take care of the tensile stresses introduced by the thrust jack forces. Hence the
compressive stresses under the thrust jack plate are governing. For steel fibre reinforced concrete the
tensile strength from the concrete itself should cope with the tensile stresses; hence now the line in
the diagrams for tension by the thrust jack forces is governing in deep tunnels.
At very large depths the normal ring force reaches such high values that ordinary concrete with the
considered amount of steel reinforcement is unable to generate a bending moment capacity that

reaches the required safety level. Subsequently at great depths the ring behaviour of an embedded
lining in ordinary concrete results in a lower boundary condition for the lining thickness.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Thickness h [mm]
19,2 0,7D
27,4 1,2D
C35/45
54,8 2,9D
C100/115
C180/210
82,2 4,6D
68 | Effect of the combined boundary conditions on the required lining thicknesses
Figure 68 shows the combined ULS areas and minimum required lining thicknesses for all concrete
strength classes. From the diagram it obviously follows that it is now impossible to agree on one
lining thickness only that defines the required governing thickness for all arbitrary depth projections.
For ordinary concrete C35/45 however the range is relatively small up to an overburden of 50 m (3D).
Here the required thickness varies from 1/21 D to 1/26 D, all very close to the value from the rule of
thumb 1/20 D.
At large depths very and ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concretes C100/115 and C180/210
only require very slender linings. According to incomplete grouting and the introduction of thrust
jack forces for instance, concrete C180/210 only requires a lining of 255 mm (1/58 D) at a depth of 61
m (4D). At the most shallow projection however no less than an additional 215 % of concrete lining is
required, resulting in a thickness of 805 mm, or 1/19 D. The application of shield driven tunnels in
ultra high strength concrete at great depths only seems essential. However in order to reach these
depths the tunnel should lead through more shallow ground as well. So how should a lining
thickness of approximately 255 mm fit in there? Or is the creation of very slender tunnel structures
from ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete virtually impossible? These questions will be
dealt with later on in this chapter.
6.2.3 Ring behaviour of embedded tunnel

Calculations on the ring behaviour of the embedded tunnel lining showed a descending safety ratio
at increasing lining thicknesses (except for ordinary concrete C35/45 at very large depths). As a result
the boundary condition of the lining thickness by this mechanism is the requirement on the
maximum allowed thickness. The bending moment by incomplete grouting for ultra high strength
concrete C180/210 however requires such high lining thicknesses at shallow depths, that these
thicknesses exceed the value for embedded ring behaviour. This actually implies that no tunnel from
this material can be constructed at these shallow depths if incomplete grouting takes place.
Interpolation within the diagram from Figure 67 demonstrates the minimum required depth is 22m
(1,4D) now.
For a lining of very high strength concrete C100/115 the boundary conditions by incomplete grouting
and the introduction of thrust jack forces on one side and embedded ring behaviour on the other side
nearly meet at the most shallow and most deep tunnel projections. As a result this material may be
applied in the considered depths only if no changes are made. At more shallow depths a situation as
described for C180/210 occurs, where the bending moment by grouting requires too large a thickness,
at deeper projections the introduction of thrust jack forces requires a too high lining thickness.
In Chapter 3 it has been stated that a relatively high concrete Youngs modulus would be applied in
the calculations on embedded ring behaviour, the modulus for short-term uncracked concrete. If this

failure mechanism turned out to be governing for the tunnels structure, the value of the modulus
could be reconsidered. Hence the lower value of cracked concrete might be used for instance;
resulting in a reduction of the actual bending moments and therefore in an increment of the linings
bending moment safety level. The calculations on the embedded ring behaviour returned an upper
boundary condition of the lining thickness. So as a consequence of the lower Youngs modulus for
concrete higher lining thicknesses may be applied according to this failure mechanism.
However the application of thicker linings does not lead to a more economic design. Therefore it
doesnt seem to make sense to reduce the resulting bending moments by ring behaviour in order to
retrieve an enlargement of the possible range of tunnel depths and a reduction of the linings
thickness. This implies other adaptations of the linings design in order to obtain a reduction of the
ring behaviours bending moment, as for instance the extension of the number of tunnel segments
per ring, are pointless according to the calculations in this report. Subsequently the lower boundary
conditions of the required lining thickness should be shifted to the left in the diagrams. This therefore
applies to the bending moment by incomplete grouting and the introduction of thrust jack forces. The
goal may be achieved in three ways: by an enlargement of the linings capacities, by a reduction of
the reaction forces or by a combination of both. The next section will demonstrate some possible
solutions.
6.3 Improvement of behaviour steel fibre reinforced concrete in

tunnels
The contribution of steel fibres in very and ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete to the
linings bending moment capacity is very small. The normal ring force is the main reason for the
large capacity compared to reinforced ordinary concrete at great depths. This has been concluded in
Chapter 3 already. Now however this phenomenon is of major importance to the large variations
between the required lining thicknesses at very shallow depths and at high tunnel depths for the
concretes C100/115 and C180/210. As mentioned before the difference between the minimum lining
thickness at great depth and the lining thickness at the most shallow depth holds 215 % for ultra high
strength concrete. As a result several improvements of the linings bending moment capacity at
shallow depths and reduction of the resulting forces are desired.
In this section both will be taken into consideration, in particular focussing on the steel fibre
reinforced very and ultra high strength concretes. At first an increment of the bending moment
capacity is considered in section 6.3.1, next reductions of the resulting forces and bending moments
in the grouting phase and due to the introduction of thrust jack forces are discussed in sections 6.3.2
and 6.3.3 respectively.
6.3.1 Addition of steel bar reinforcement

The fact that reinforcement bars in a lining of ordinary concrete C35/45 are a great advantage for the
development of its bending moment capacity compared to very and ultra high strength steel fibre
reinforced concrete, has been extensively discussed in Chapter 3 already. As soon as the tunnel depth
increases, the normal ring forces rise and the capacities of C100/115 and C180/210 will finally exceed
the one of reinforced concrete C35/45. At shallow depths however the bending moment capacity of
the steel fibre reinforced concrete materials is insufficient to obtain a significant reduction of the
lining thickness. Application of reinforcement bars in the cross-sections of these materials as well,
might be a legitimate option to increase the capacity and tackle the problem.
In order to test this proposition an example will be discussed where additional reinforcement is
applied to the original steel fibre reinforced concrete C180/210. Regardless of the lining thickness 14
rebars per full segmental width, with a diameter of 20 mm (14 20), are used at the bottom as well as
at the top of the cross-section. Due to the dense concrete matrix a concrete cover of only 10 mm is
sufficient [8].

The discussion on the calculation method of the bending moment capacity showed the contribution
by the rebars is most effective at a relatively thick lining in case of ordinary concrete. Only at large
lining thicknesses the tensile force in the steel bars reaches its maximum level. Besides, the lever arm
for its contribution is defined by the lining thickness as well, resulting in a larger bending moment
capacity. In case of ultra high strength concrete another additional fact occurs. By now its known
that the maximum tensile strain from the stress-strain diagram for ultra high strength concrete is
easily exceeded in thick linings and shallow tunnel depths due to the small concrete compressive
zone. The same applies to the steel rebars. If the strain at the location of the reinforcement bars
exceeds the ultimate strain for steel because of a very small concrete compressive zone, the complete
steel force by this reinforcement layer would disappear in the bending moment capacity calculation.
A lower maximum compressive strain results in a larger height of the concrete compressive zone and
therefore returns the steel force to the cross-section. Consequently the bending moment capacity still
shows an increase at an ascending thickness. Figure 69a clearly shows this phenomenon. In Figure
69b the increment in terms of percentage of the ultimate resisting moment due to the reinforcement
bars is displayed.
Surplus moment relative to C35/45 [%]
1,2D reinforced
2000 80
0,7D reinforced
0,7D
1500 60
1000 40
1,2D
1,2D unreinforced
500 0,7D unreinforced 20

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a b
69 | Utimate resisting moment with and without additional rebars: a) absolute values; b) surplus by rebars
Even though Figure 69b shows that the effect of the reinforcement bars is not at its optimum at very
thin lining thicknesses, the actual increment is sufficient to result in a significant lower required
lining thickness by the bending moments in the grouting phase. The lining thickness required by
embedded ring behaviour is influenced by the increased bending moment capacity as well. The
required safety level is now met at each considered lining thickness and depth in case ultra high
strength concrete with reinforcement bars is applied. Hence the original upper boundary condition is
no longer visible and the applicable ULS area is extended significantly.
In Figure 70 both the original unreinforced and reinforced situations are presented. Higher amounts
of reinforcement have been included in the figure as well. Obviously huge savings of the required
lining thickness can be realised by the addition of steel rebars. In case 56 bars per full segmental
width are used, a lining thickness of only 265 mm or 1/56 D is sufficient. At larger depth projections
less reinforcement is needed in order to obtain the same lining thickness. As a consequence similar
tunnel segments can be produced with a reinforcement percentage depending on the projected depth
of each individual segment.

0 200 400 600 800 1000
Thickness h [mm]
f.
42 20
28 0
20
20
reinforcement:
in
2

re
14
56
un
19,2 jack
27,4
s te
ns.
54,8 2,9D
ring behaviour
82,2 4,6D unreinforced
70 | Influence of reinforcement bars on the required lining thicknesses for C180/210
The improvement of the linings bending moment capacity by the application of reinforcement bars
nearly reduced the required lining thickness to the original minimum value of 255 mm from the
previous section. At the most shallow projection however very high amounts of reinforcement are
required by the bending moment for incomplete grouting. A reduction of the actual resulting forces
by this mechanism might obtain an even better and more considerable result. The following section
gives an example of that solution.
6.3.2 Reduction of uplift force in grouting phase by ballast

The maximum bending moment in a tunnel lining in freshly injected grout is determined by the
extent in which the lining is pressed into the fictitious top support by the upward floating component
of the grout pressure (combined hydrostatic water pressure and grout-lining contact pressure). The
fictitious top support imitates a local pressure increase at the top of the tunnel by interlocking of
grout in the tail void. Both complete and incomplete grouting were considered in the calculations.
Complete grouting requires, especially at shallow tunnel depths, a significant lower bending moment
capacity than incomplete grouting. The latter however may occur for various reasons. Considering
the present grout injection techniques it is assumed that incomplete grouting can not be prevented
easily and therefore will take place.
A reduction of the resulting bending moment by grouting should be achieved by a reduction of the
top supports stiffness or by a reduction of the total upward floating force. The most easy solution of
both is to reduce the upward floating force. It is not the gross floating force (roughly by the
hydrostatic development of the water pressure), but the net floating force that can be altered. The
weight of the tunnel and (to a limited extent) the shear stresses in the grout, act against the upward
floating force and reduce its final net value. An enlargement of the total tunnel weight therefore
prevents the lining to be pushed into the top support by a high upward floating force. Additional
mass in the tunnel segments themselves is inappropriate; this adds up to the costs for transport of
these prefabricated segments. Moreover the additional weight is required in the grouting phase
(construction phase) only, not during the serviceability phase.
To restrict floating of the tunnel during the grouting phase mass of a temporary kind is thus
required. Straightforward ballast in the tunnels interior, for instance sand fill, seems most suitable
and most simple to use. At the same time as the grout is injected sand is now dumped at the bottom
of the tunnel. If the grout has hardened to such degree that the additional mass is no longer needed,
sand can be moved from the back of the fill to the front of the tunnel boring machine to serve as
ballast for the newest rings once more.
During construction of shield driven tunnels some fill is created by sand or a part of the future
internal structure already (see Figure 71). The resulting levelled surface provides a carriage way for
dump trucks to transport the excavated soil from the TBM out of the tunnel. By not only defining the

height of this fill on pure functional grounds, but on temporary structural grounds as well, a
reduction of the required lining thickness may be achieved.
71 | Levelled tunnel interior during construction Green Heart Tunnel
The software application LDesign, that was used to perform calculations on the grout uplift loading
case, has no function to add additional mass to the tunnel. The final net uplift force however is
reduced by the weight of the tunnel lining. Therefore the specific gravity of the concrete lining (the
specific gravity for C180/210 holds C180/210 = 28 kN/m) is increased in new calculations to imitate a
sand fill (specific gravity of sand = 18 kN/m) at similar lining thicknesses.
By iteration a specific gravity for the concrete lining is searched for that meets the required bending
moment safety level of 1,5 at a specific lining thickness. In other words: for each lining thickness the
linings specific mass is altered up to the moment that the resulting maximum bending moment
equals the bending moment capacity divided by the required safety level of 1,5. The additional
weight of the tunnel lining is now easily converted to a required height of the sand fill from the top
of the circular tunnel tube.
For the shield driven tunnel of motorway A13/16 several required sand heights have been
determined for ultra high strength concrete with and without additional steel bar reinforcement (14
20). The most shallow tunnel depth projections only have been considered. The required lining
thickness should be reduced to the minimum value from the original calculations as much as
possible. Therefore only values close to 255 mm have been applied, hence 200, 300 and 400 mm. The
maximum required sand fill has a height of 5,8 m for these cases (most shallow depth, 200 mm
without rebars). Figure 72 displays the required sand fills for all situations. In case a lining thickness
of 300 mm steel fibre reinforced concrete C180/210 with the additional reinforcement bars from the
previous section is used, temporary sand heights of 4,0 and 2,7 m are necessary at the most shallow
11,1 m (0,7D) and standard 19,3 m (1,2D) tunnel depth projections respectively.
200 mm 300 mm 400 mm
Sand fill [m]
Sand fill [m]
Sand fill [m]
Unreinforced Reinforced Unreinforced Reinforced Unreinforced Reinforced

14 20 14 20 14 20
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0,7D 1,2D 0,7D 1,2D 0,7D 1,2D 0,7D 1,2D 0,7D 1,2D 0,7D 1,2D
Tunnel depth Tunnel depth Tunnel depth
72 | Required sandfill to resist bending moment by incomplete grouting for C180/210

A proper combination of additional rebars in the tunnel lining in order to increase the bending
moment capacity and a (temporary) sand fill in order to reduce the upward floating forces in the
grouting phase, is able to contribute to the reduction of the required lining thickness of steel fibre
reinforced ultra high strength concrete C180/210 in shallow tunnels. Now the governing situation of
the construction phase is reduced for this type of shield driven tunnels. The application of steel
reinforcement bars in the tunnel segments cause an enlargement of the safety level in the tunnels
serviceability phase as well.
6.3.3 Reduction of thrust jack force

The diagrams in section 6.2 proved that the introduction of thrust jack forces leads to governing
required lining thicknesses at great depths. For reinforced ordinary concrete C35/45 this occurs from
a soil cover of approximately 38 m (2,3D) already. From this point the required lining thickness
grows nearly linear to the depths increment. For steel fibre reinforced high strength concretes the
tensile bursting stresses in the segment are responsible for this. In case of reinforced ordinary
concrete it is assumed that these tensile forces are carried by the reinforcement completely, as a result
the compressive stress under the thrust jack plates is governing for this material. An enlargement of
the jack plates surface reduces both the resulting tensile and compressive stresses. The previous
chapter proved stresses in tangential direction are governing for the applied plate dimensions; hence
the plates width should be increased firstly. It is important however to remember that the force that
is induced in the plates by two thrust jacks from the tunnel boring machine, must be able to
uniformly spread over the full width and height of the plates in order to introduce a constant
pressure in the concrete. If the width of the plate increases, this becomes more and more difficult.
Nevertheless suppression of the symptoms of thrust jack force introduction is not the only way to
solve the problem. In the study by De Rijke [12], which has been used to retrieve the actual trust jack
forces in this report, also contains some advises to reduce these forces. Measures vary from a
reduction of friction by the cutting wheel and the TBMs shield to reduction of the required axial
length of this shield. For more details on possible reductions of this failure mechanism is referred to
De Rijkes report. A reduction of the thrust jack force results in a more or less linear proportional
reduction of the required lining thickness.
6.4 Conclusions
Torsion by the trumpet effect during the construction phase leads to damage by cracks. If the rule of
thumb for a lining thickness of 1/20 D is used, cracks will appear in reinforced ordinary concrete
C35/45.
Even if damage by torsion is neglected the construction phase of the shield driven tunnel is very
important for the determination of the required lining thickness. Incomplete grouting in shallow
tunnels and the introduction of thrust jack forces in deep tunnels now dictate the required thickness.
The rule of thumb 1/20 D leads to a safe tunnel lining in reinforced ordinary concrete up to a depth of
approximately 50 m (3D).
No simple rule of thumb is present for the required lining thickness of steel fibre reinforced very or
ultra high strength concrete at each arbitrary tunnel depth projection. The required thickness of
tunnel linings in plane ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete is lowest in deep tunnels.
Reinforced ordinary concrete behaves best at a depth projection of 2D. The best application of plane
very high strength concrete is in between both previous materials.
In order to reach high depths for tunnels in very and ultra high strength concrete shallow depths
should be passed as well. Reinforcement bars should be added to these steel fibre reinforced
materials to make construction of shallow tunnels possible as well. Tunnel linings with a thickness
from only 1/56 D are possible now.

In all shallow tunnels the required lining thickness by incomplete grouting is very large. This effect
can be repressed by adding additional temporary weight to the tunnel (for instance by sand fill inside
the tunnel) in order to reduce the total uplift force from the water and grout pressures.

Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
The construction phase of shield driven tunnels is of major importance for the determination of a
required lining thickness. For shallow tunnels the bending moment by incomplete grouting dictates
the tunnels strength and therefore the required thickness. In deep tunnels concrete stresses by the
introduction of thrust jack forces are governing. In all considered concrete strength classes cracks are
likely to occur due to torsion in tunnel segments leaving the tunnel boring machine (known as the
trumpet effect) if the lining thicknesses dictated by the tunnels strength are applied. Also in case the
thickness of a lining from reinforced ordinary concrete is determined by the common rule of thumb
1/20 D, torsion cracks occur.
Therefore the tunnels construction phase can not be neglected in the design process.
Ring behaviour of a tunnel embedded in soil during the serviceability phase does not result in a
governing required lining thickness. The safety level for the bending moment in this failure
mechanism decreases if the lining thickness increases. As a result the requirement found for the
lining thickness is an upper boundary condition. Hence the applied thickness may not exceed this
relatively high value. Consequently alterations of the tunnels design in order to reduce the bending
moment in embedded ring behaviour only do not result in a lower required lining thickness.
Measures to decrease the governing behaviour of the construction phase however, do result in
thinner linings.
Steel fibres in very and ultra high strength concrete hardly contribute to the linings bending moment
capacity. If the lining thickness increases this minor contribution decreases even more. Consequently
slender tunnel linings in ultra high strength concrete with steel fibre reinforcement only are most
favourable at very high tunnel depths, where high normal ring forces are present. At a depth of
approximately 62 m (5D) concrete C180/210 only requires a lining thickness of 255 mm (1/58 D). At
very shallow depths however thicknesses of over triple this minimum value are necessary. The same
happens to very high strength concrete C100/115 that requires a lining thickness of only 375 mm at a
depth of 46 m (2,9D).
As a result no simple rule of thumb can be set for the required lining thickness of a shield driven
tunnel in steel fibre reinforced very or ultra high strength concrete at each arbitrary depth. The rule
of thumb 1/20 D for the lining thickness of reinforced ordinary concrete proved to be on the safe side
up to a tunnel depth projection of approximately 3D for the considered tunnel.
Tunnel linings in very or ultra high strength concrete can be constructed only if reinforcement bars
are added. The wide scattering of required lining thicknesses over the depth of a tunnel in plain steel
fibre reinforced concrete, makes it impossible to construct tunnels of these materials in both more
shallow and deep grounds. Reinforcement bars increase the linings bending moment capacity to a
high extent and therefore reduce the governing behaviour of incomplete grouting. In the considered
tunnel with an internal diameter of 14,9 m a lining thickness of only 265 mm (1/56 D) has been
85
presented for a heavily reinforced tunnel segment in ultra high strength concrete at each depth
projection.
Temporary measures can be taken to reduce the governing behaviour of incomplete grouting during
the construction phase of a shield driven tunnel. Reduction of the net uplift floating force by use of
additional mass in the tunnel has a positive effect on the required lining thickness. Consequently
tunnel linings in ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete with additional reinforcement bars
are able to reach thicknesses below 250 mm or 1/60 D.
Recommendations
More (temporary) measures might be possible to reduce governing behaviour and damage due to
mechanisms in the construction phase of shield driven tunnels. This holds especially for torsion in
the tunnel segments that leads to cracking in all considered concrete materials and most lining
thicknesses. Research on how to prevent this topic can result in a significant decrease of damage in
tunnel linings during the construction phase.
Studies on modelling of the behaviour of shield driven tunnels in fresh grout should focus on
solutions to prevent governing behaviour of this mechanism. Especially in shallow tunnel depths
prevention of high resulting bending moments by grouting is needed in order to reduce the required
lining thickness.
This study showed that the minimum required lining thickness for very and ultra high strength
concrete very much depends on the tunnels depth projection. Only a very large tunnel diameter has
been investigated up to now. Likewise research on the applicability of these concrete materials in
shield driven tunnels with smaller diameters is needed. Comparison of both studies might show that
the application of shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete is perhaps more favourable for
large or small tunnels.
Only strength related mechanisms have been studied in this report. Requirements on the deflections
have been omitted. Calculations on torsion in the grouting phase however showed that very large
deflections occur during incomplete grouting of very slender tunnel linings. Adaptations of the
linings cross-section for slender ultra high strength concrete in order to generate stiffer behaviour
might therefore be needed to meet the requirements. Hence more detailed research on quality
constraints, like deflections, durability and fire safety, should be performed before a shield driven
tunnel in ultra high strength concrete is constructed.

References
1. Acker, P., C. Baloche et al., Ultra High Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes, Interim
Recommendations. Bagneux Cedex (France): Setra and AFGC, January 2002
2. Bambridge, C., Focusing on fibres: CTRL experience. In: Tunnels & Tunnelling International, March
2006
3. Blom, C.B.M., A.P.M. Plagmeijer, Boren van tunnels met niet-ronde vormen. In: Cement 6 2003,
pages 74-80 (Dutch)
4. Blom, C.B.M., Concrete linings fors hield driven tunnels, lecture note. Delft: Delft University of
Technology, March, 2006
5. Blom, C.B.M., Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soil, dissertation. Delft: Delft
University Press, December 2002
6. Bruijn, H.J. de, HS, Literatuur- en voorstudie: hogere sterkte beton nader belicht. Utrecht: Delft
University of Technology and Holland Railconsult, December 2005 (Dutch)
7. Burgers, R., Non-linear FEM modelling of steel fibre reinforced concrete for the analysis of tunnel
elements in the thrust jack phase, thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology, September 2006
8. CRC description. Hjallerup (Denmark): CRC Technology Aps (download at www.crc-tech.com)
9. Hollander, J. den, Technical feasiblity study of a UHPC tied arch bridge, thesis. Delft: Delft
University of Technology and Ingenieursbureau Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, May 2006
10. Kaptijn, N., Zeerhogesterktebeton, Toepassingen, handout. Utrecht: Rijkswaterstaat Bouwdienst
DIO, 2002 (Dutch)
11. Pruijssers, A.F. et al., Toetsingsrichtlijn voor het ontwerp van boortunnels voor weg- en
railinfrastructuur L500. Gouda: Centrum Ondergronds Bouwen, September 2000 (Dutch)
12. Rijke, Q.C. de, Innovation of stress and damage reduction in bored tunnels during construction based on
a shield equilibrium model, thesis. Utrecht: Delft University of Technology and Holland
Railconsult, February 2006
13. Rijkswaterstaat, SATO Deel 5 Tunneldetails. Utrecht: Bouwdienst Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch)
14. Rijkswaterstaat, Startnotitie Rijksweg A13/16 Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en
Waterstaat, Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat Zuid-Holland, November 2005 (Dutch)
15. Rijkswaterstaat, Technische haalbaarheidsstudie tunnelverbinding A6/A9. Utrecht: Ministerie van
Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, September 2002 (Dutch)
16. Schumacher, P., Rotation Capacity of Self-Compacting Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, dissertation.
Delft: Delft University of Technology, November 2006
17. Slenders, B.M.A., Modellering van boortunnels, thesis. Utrecht: Delft University of Technology and
Projectorganisatie HSL-Zuid, January 2002 (Dutch)
18. Waal, R.G.A. de, Steel fibre reinforced tunnel segments. Delft: Delft University Press, January 2000
19. Walraven, J.C., Ultra-hogesterktebeton: een material in ontwikkeling. In: Cement 5 2006, pages 57-
61 (Dutch)
87
Table of figures
Figures
1 | Volume of concrete increases quadratic proportional to tunnel diameter 2
2 | Visualisation of this reports structure 4
3 | Dimensions and elements of the tunnel lining 6
4 | Thrust jack configurations: a) German method; b) French method 7
5 | Uneven support of tunnel segments for: a) German configuration; b) French configuration 7
6 | Concrete materials: significant increase of density and homogeneity for BSI 8
7 | Pedestrian Bridge of Peace in Seonyu, South Korea 9
8 | Surroundings of motorway A13/16 in the north of Rotterdam 10
9 | Fitting two directions in one tunnel tube. a) Two tunnels with large useless free areas; b) One
tunnel with less free space 11
10 | Cross-section of tunnel for motorway A13/16 with personal cars only (scale 1:150) 12
11 | Schematic representation alignment of the tunnel for motorway A13/16 12
12 | Uniform pressure leading to normal ring force tunnel 17
13 | Relation between rotations and bending moments in a Janen joint 17
14 | Beam elements (and nodes) in the centre line of a tunnel segment 19
15 | Determination of spring stiffness for ring joints 19
16 | Vertical stresses in uniform soil continuum along a tunnel 21
17 | Orientation of vertical and horizontal versus radial and tangential soil loads 22
18 | Moment distribution in validation BRT-model and model from this study 25
19 | Moment distribution in validation model LDesign and model from this study 26
20 | Complete framework model for the shield driven tunnel of this study 28
21 | Maximum bending moment by ring behaviour for depth of 0,7D. a) absolute values; b) surplus
relative to maximum moments for ordinary concrete C35/45 30
22 | Normal ring force by ring behaviour for depth of 0,7D 30
23 | Effect of tunnel depth projection with a lining thickness of 675 mm. a) normal ring force; b)
tangential bending moment 31
24 | Maximum bending moment by ring behaviour for soil overburden of: a) 1,2D; b) 2,9D; c) 4,6D 31
25 | Calculation definition ultimate resisting moment 32
26 | Stress-strain diagram of reinforcement steel 33
27 | Stress-strain relations of ultra high strength concrete: a) strain hardening; b) and strain softening
34
28 | Stress-strain diagrams steel fibre reinforced concretes a) C100/115; b) C180.210 35
29 | Ultimate resisting moment at a depth of 0,7D 37
30 | Development ultimate resisting moment at various depth projections for lining thickness of 675
mm 37
31 | Ultimate resising moment at depth projections of: a) 1,2D; b) 2,9D; c) 4,6D 38
32 | Development of safety factor Mu/Mmax at depth projections of: a) 0,7D; b) 1,2D; c) 2,9D; d) 4,6D 39
33 | Upper boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of embedded ring
behaviour (lower boundary for C35/45) 41
34 | Development ultimate resisting moment over the depth for 675 mm thick reinforced concrete
C35/45 44
35 | Forces and definitions in the uplift loading case [5] 46
89
36 | Fictitious top support 48
37 | Bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting at a depth of 0,7D 49
38 | Development bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting over the depth for 675 mm
C35/45 50
39 | Bending moment by complete and incomplete grouting at depths: a) 1,2D; b) 2,9D; c) 4,6D 50
40 | Bending moment safety factor for complete and incomplete grouting at depths: a) 0,7D; b) 1,2D;
c) 2,9D; d) 4,6D 52
41 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of complete and
incomplete grouting 53
42 | Development of bursting stresses. a) Compression trajectories; b) Latice analogy 56
43 | Tensile force in latice analogy for German thrust jack configuration 56
44 | Stress distribution in tunnel segments due to introduction of thrust jack forces in the: a) French
and b) German thrust jack configurations [5, 18] 56
45 | TBM Shield Equilibrium Model with line load to determine thrust jack forces 58
46 | Development thrust jack forces over: a) Lining thicknesses for depth of 1,2D; b) Tunnel depth 59
47 | Definitions schematised stress distribution under a thrust jack plate 60
48 | Compressive stress under thrust jack plates for a depth of 1,2D 62
49 | Introduction of thrust jack forces over the depth. a) Compressive stress under thrust jack plate;
b) Required lining thicknesses 62
50 | Spreading of compression trajectories in tangential and radial direction in tunnel segments 63
51 | Diagram of Iyengar for tensile bursting stresses due to introduction of thrust jack forces 63
52 | Radial and tangential tensile bursting stresses due to the introduction of thrust jack forces 64
53 | Introduction of thrust jack forces over the depth. a) Maximum tangential tensile bursting
stresses; b) Required lining thickness per concrete strength class by bursting stresses 65
54 | Torsion in tunnel segments by deformation due to grout loading 66
55 | Rotation of tunnel segment in vertical plane 66
56 | Maximum allowed deformation u2 due to torsion only in tunnel segments 68
57 | Multi-axial stresses in twisted tunnel segments. a) Definition of stresses; b) Mohrs cirle 69
58 | Allowed shear stress tj at a depth of 1,2D 70
59 | Development of allowed deflection u2 at depths: a) 0,7D; b) 1,2D; c) 2,9D; d) 4,6D 70
60 | Development of actual deflections due to ovalisation of tunnel in the uplift loading case for a
lining thickness of 675 mm 71
61 | Deflections by complete and incomplete grouting at overburden of 19,3 m (1,2D) 71
62 | Safety factor for incomplete grouting against cracking by torsion for an overburden of 1,2D 72
63 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses by the introduction of thrust jack
forces 73
64 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses to prevent cracks by the trumpet
effect 73
65 | Boundary conditions on lining thickness for C35/45 76
66 | Boundary conditions on lining thickness for C100/115 76
67 | Boundary conditions on required lining thickness for C180/210 76
68 | Effect of the combined boundary conditions on the required lining thicknesses 78
69 | Utimate resisting moment with and without additional rebars: a) absolute values; b) surplus by
rebars 80
70 | Influence of reinforcement bars on the required lining thicknesses for C180/210 81
71 | Levelled tunnel interior during construction Green Heart Tunnel 82
72 | Required sandfill to resist bending moment by incomplete grouting for C180/210 82
73 | Tangential cross-section of the longitudinal joint (left) and an overview of the stresses in the
reduced beam problem of Janen 98
74 | Stresses in the Janen joint in case the compressive yield strain has been exceeded (left) and the
stress-strain relation for rotation in the joint (right) 100

75 | Cartesian coordinate system (x-y-z) and cylindrical coordinates system (r--z) 105
76 | Distances in a Cartesian x-y and r-t-() coordinate system for a point (ux, uy) 105
77 | Distributed loads on the element of the tunnel structure 106
78 | Required depth projection tunnel to prevent floating 108
79 | Forces and lever arms in the calculation 109
80 | Stress-strain diagram of concrete with tensile behaviour 110
81 | Stress-strain diagram reinforcement steel 111
82 | Determination equation by nodes of a linear element 111
83 | Adapted stress-strain diagrams in case material factors are excluded from the strength
calculations 123
Tables
Table 1 | Lining thickness over diameter ratio for Dutch shield driven tunnels 5
Table 2 | Classification of concrete strength classes [19] 8
Table 3 | Notation and values depth projection tunnel 29
Table 4 | Upper boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of embedded ring
behaviour 40
Table 5 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowable lining thicknesses in case of complete and
incomplete grouting 52
Table 6 | Calculation of axial thrust jack forces 58
Table 7 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses by the introduction of thrust
jack forces 65
Table 8 | Lower boundary conditions on the allowed lining thicknesses to prevent cracks by the
trumpet effect 72
Table 9 | Equations for the longitudinal Janen joint 103
Table 10 | Partial safety factors for strength (resistance) according NEN 6720 and DIN 1045 neu 119
Table 11 | Partial loading factors NEN 6720 (safety class 3) and DIN 1045 neu 120

Appendices
Table of contents
Appendix A Derivations 95
A.1 Janen joint 97
Appendix B Ultimate resisting moment for steel fibre reinforced concrete 109
Appendix C Safety factors in shield driven tunnels 117
93
Appendix A
Derivations
A.1 Janen joint 97


A.1 Janen joint
The longitudinal joint is an inhomogeneous part of the tunnel structure and therefore needs extra
attention in the modelling process of ring behaviour for a shield driven tunnel. The joint transfers a
bending moment and a normal force by contact; its unable to transfer tensile forces and opens in
case of a relatively high bending moment. Modelling of a contact area usually means longer
calculation times. If a solution is present to simplify this problem, it would be favourable for the
framework analysis.
A simplified solution has been presented by Janen. The contact problem was reduced to the
problem of a beam, which is unable to cope with any tensile stresses. The width and height in the
tangential cross-section of the beam equals the contact height of the longitudinal joint. Opening of the
joint is symbolised by formation of a crack in the complete tensile zone of this beam. The formation
of this crack depends on the applied normal force and bending moment at that particular joint. The
stiffness of the beam, also called Janen joint, now represents the stiffness of the longitudinal joint. By
applying this stiffness (being a function of the normal force and bending moment) to a non-linear
rotational joint its possible to simplify the contact problem in a longitudinal joint in a framework
analysis.
This appendix discusses the derivation of Janens method and computes some useful attributes of
the Janen joint in advance.
Derivation rotational stiffness of a Janen joint

The lining of a shield driven tunnel is loaded by a bending moment and a normal force. This holds
for the longitudinal joint as well. As discussed before the stiffness of the Janen joint depends on
both the normal force and the bending moment.
In order to compute the stiffness first the stresses in the joint are being examined in figure 73.
The parameters used in this figure represent:

lt = Height and width of the contact area
M = Bending moment
R = Reaction force
uM = Displacement at edge of the Janen beam by the bending moment
xu = Height of the contact area still subjected to a compressive stress
M = Stress by bending moment
N = Stress by normal force
= M + N
= Rotation in the Janen joint

N
lt
lt

uM
lt
+
M

xu R
73 | Tangential cross-section of the longitudinal joint (left) and an overview of the stresses in the reduced beam problem of
Janen
Depending on the ratio between the bending moment and the normal force the joint will be opened
or closed. Both situations are discussed separately. This will also be done for the opened situation
when concrete behaves plastic.
Rotational stiffness of a closed longitudinal joint

The rotational stiffness of a spring is defined by the equation:
M
cr = (1)

From this equation the bending moment M is known. However the rotation still needs to be
derived. By having a look at figure 73 this rotation is given by:
2u M
= (2)
lt
In order to determine the displacement uM, first of all the stress by the bending moment shown is
needed:
6M
M = 2 (3)
bl t
Where: b = Width of the tunnel segment
For the strain resulting from this stress it holds:

M = M (4)
Ec
Where: Ec = Youngs modulus of concrete
Next the deflection uM is easy to determine:
uM = Ml t (5)
Substitution of equations (3), (4) and (5) into (2) gives the rotation by M:
12M
= (6)
E c bl 2t
Now substitution of equation (6) into equation (1) results in the constant rotational stiffness of a
closed Janen joint depending on the stiffness and lay-out of the contact area:
E bl 2
cr = c t (7)
12

As soon as the maximum stress by the bending moment M surpasses the constant stress by the
normal force N, the joint opens. Therefore equation (7) only holds if the following criterion is met:
M N (8)
The stress N is given by:
N
N = (9)
bl t
By substituting equation (3) and (9) into (8) it holds:
Nl t
M (10)
6
In order to retrieve the rotation when opening of the Janen joint first occurs, equation (10) is
substituted into equation (6). Now the criterion for using equation (7) as the rotational stiffness of the
Janen joint may be written as:
2N

Ebl t
As long as this criterion is met, the longitudinal joint is closed.
Rotational stiffness of an opened longitudinal joint

In case the joint opens, a different approach is needed in order to determine the rotational stiffness.
This determination starts with the fact that equilibrium of forces should be present:
N = 0 N = R (11)
The reaction force R is given by:
bx u
R= (12)
2
By combining both equations (11) and (12) it holds for the height of the contact area still under
pressure:
2N
xu = (13)
b
Equilibrium of bending moments is required as well:

l x
M = 0 M N t u = 0 (14)
2 3
By substitution of xu (equation (13)) in equation (14), it follows:
4 N
= (15)
2M
3bl t 1
Nl t
The strain , the displacement u and the rotation in the joint are given by:
u
= , u = l t and = (16), (17) and (18)
Ec xu
After substitution of equations (13), (15), (16) and (17) into equation (18), the rotation is given by:
8N
= 2
(19)
2M
9 bl t E c 1
Nl t
Hence the equation for the non-linear rotational stiffness of the Janen joint in case of opening holds:
2
2M
9 bl t E c M 1
M Nl t
cr = =
8N
Rotational stiffness opened joint with plastic concrete stresses

At an increasing rotation of the longitudinal joint, a point will be reached where the maximum
strain in the joint reaches the compressive yield strain of concrete. From this point the layout of
stresses in the joint will be different from the diagram in figure 73. Therefore a new overview will be
given:
N
lt
lt
f'c
u
lt
R1 R2 Ec
x1 x2
'c 'cu
74 | Stresses in the Janen joint in case the compressive yield strain has been exceeded (left) and the stress-strain relation
for rotation in the joint (right)
New parameters in these figures are:

x1 = Height of the compressive zone up to the compressive yield strain
x2 = Height of compressive zone from the yield strain to the ultimate strain
R1 = Reaction force from the compressive zone at part x1
R2 = Reaction force from the compressive zone at part x2
f'c = Design compressive strangth of concrete
'c = Compressive yield strain
'cu = Ultimate compressive strain
The compressive yield strain 'c is defined by:

f'
' c = c
Ec
In this case the rotation is given by the equation:
' l f' l
= c t = c t
x1 Ec x1
Or for the first part of the compressive zone x1 it holds:
f' l
x1 = c t (20)
Ec
Now the reaction force R1 will be computed by (after substitution of equation (20)):
f' c x 1 b
R1 = (21)
2
The other way round holds for x1:
2R 1
x1 = (22)
f' c b
At all time equilibrium of forces should be present, resulting in:

N = 0 R 2 = N R 1 (23)
The second part of the compressive zone x2 is defined by the following equation after including
equation (23):

R2 N R1
x2 = = (24)
f' c b f' c b
Equilibrium of bending moment is defined by:

l x x
M = 0 M N t + R 1 1 + x 2 + R 2 2 = 0 (25)
2 3 2
After substitution of equations (22), (23) and (24) equation (25) can be rewritten as:
l 2R 1
M N t + R 1 +
(N R 1 )b + (N R 1 )2 b = 0 (26)
2
3f' c b f' c 2f' c
Now by using the substitution of equation (20) in (21) in the new equation (26), the rotation can be
isolated as the only unknown. Resulting from Maple 6 substitutions, the rotation is given by the
comprehensive equations:
1,2 =
(6N )
21N 2 + 30Mf ' c b 15Nl t f' c b l t f' c2 b
(27)
6( 2Mf ' c b + l t Nf' c b + N )E c
2
By using the final value of the non-plastic opened joint rotation as a boundary condition, the correct
equation of both can be determined.
Hence the Janen rotational stiffness (equation (1)) for the plastic situation of the joint is known:
M 6( 2Mf' c b + l t Nf' c b + N 2 )ME c
c r1,2 =
1,2
=
(
6 N 21N 2 + 30Mf' b 15Nl f' b l f' 2 b
c t c ) t c
Derivation of forces in a Janen joint

In this study some checks have been executed on the reactions in the longitudinal joint. The
maximum strain should not exceed the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete. Calculations on
the bending moment in the joint also showed that it converges to a maximum value. This value will
be computed in this appendix as well.
Upsetting strain
The upsetting strain, or ultimate compressive strain, is a material related property. This study
therefore investigates the effects of this property on the maximum strain actually occurring in the
joint. The upsetting strain max will be given as a function of the rotation .
In case of a closed joint equation (2) will be substituted into equation (5):
l t
= Ml t
2
Where M represents the strain by the bending moment in the joint. The strain due to the normal force
is given by:
N
N = N =
E' c E' c bl t
Now the total strain max in a closed joint holds:
N
max = M + N = +
2 E' c bl t
For the calculation of the maximum strain in case of an opened joint firstly equation (18) will be
substituted into equation 17:
x
x u = l t = u
lt
Substitution of equation (13) in this equation gives:

2N
= (28)
bl t
Now equation (15) is introduced to equation (28) and is replaced by max, resulting in the final
equation for the maximum strain in an opened joint:
3 2M
max = 1
2 Nl t
Next if concrete plasticity occurs in the opened Janen joint, the maximum strain is retrieved from
figure 74 and holds:
' (x + x 2 ) f' c (x 1 + x 2 )
max = c 1 = (29)
x1 Ec x1
Substitution of equations (20), (24) and (21) in (29) results in the following equation for the maximum
strain if plasticity occurs:
f ' l b + 2 NE c
max = c t
2E c f ' c l t b
Maximum bending moment in opened and plastic longitudinal joints

The non-linear expression for the rotation of an opened Janen joint (equation (19)) contains a part
which might cause an invalid division by zero. The rotation diverts to infinity as soon as it reaches a
certain maximum bending moment, Mmax of the opened non-plastic Janen joint. This bending
moment is found by isolating the part between brackets in equation (19). The maximum bending
moment is derived by setting this equation equal to zero:
2M
1 = 0
Nl t
By reordering this equation and replacing M by Mmax, we find:
l
M max = N t
2
In the non-linear equation for the rotation of the Janen joint in case of concrete plasticity (equation
(27)) too, a possibility for an invalid division by zero exists. Hence this expression knows a maximum
bending moment as well. This maximum is derived by the equilibrium of:
2Mf' c b + l t Nf' c b + N 2 = 0
Reordering and again replacement of M by Mmax now results in the maximum bending moment for a
plastic Janen joint:
l N2
M max = N t +
2 2f ' c b
Summary of equations representing the Janen joint

By assuming the rotation in the Janen longitudinal joint increases and the normal force N is known,
three different stages are given:
2N
1. Closed joint,
Ebl t
2N
2. Opened joint, > and ' c
Ebl t
3. Concrete behaving plastic in joint, ' c < ' cu
The equations for the rotational stiffness and reactions in the Janen joint for all three situations are
summarised in Table 9.

Table 9 | Equations for the longitudinal Janen joint
Closed Opened Plastic behaviour

Rotation 12M 8N 6N 21N2 + 30Mf' b 15Nl f' b l f'2 b
= = 2 c t c t c
bl 2tE'c 2M 1,2 =
9bl tE'c
Nl t
1

( 2
6 2Mf'c b + l tNf'c b + N E'c )
Rotational
cr =
bl 2tE'c 2M
2
cr1,2 =
( )
6 2Mf'c b + l tNf'c b + N2 ME'c
stiffness 9bl tE'c M 1
12 N 6N 21N2 + 30Mf' b 15Nl f' b l f'2 b
tl c t c t c
cr =
8N
Maximum strain N 3 2M f'c l tb + 2NE'c
max = + max = 1 max =
2 E'c bl t 2 Nl t
2Ec f'c l tb
Maximum bending n/a lt lt N2

moment Mmax = N Mmax = N +
2 2 2f'c b

A.2 Transformation of coordinate systems
A cylindrical coordinate system (r--z) is best used to model the tube of a shield driven tunnel. The
loads on the tunnel however are given by a Cartesian coordinate system (x-y-z). Equations to
transform one system into the other will be described in this appendix. Besides the conversion of
Cartesian soil stresses into cylindrical soil forces on the nodes of the tunnel will be discussed as well.
First of all both systems have been shown in figure 75.

x
z z
75 | Cartesian coordinate system (x-y-z) and cylindrical coordinates system (r--z)
Both the Cartesian and cylindrical coordinate systems share the same axis z. Therefore this appendix
only focuses on the transformation of the 2-dimensional Cartesian x-y and circular r- systems.
Stresses and forces act on a surface. The angle of this surface in the Cartesian system x-y is fixed.
Implying forces perpendicular to the axis r might occur as well. Therefore an axis t will be added to
the circular r- system. Now a new coordinate system r-t is created, showing the Cartesian x-y system
rotated over an angle of .
x
r
ur
ux (ux, uy)
ur2
ur1
y
uy

ut1
ut
ut2
t
76 | Distances in a Cartesian x-y and r-t-() coordinate system for a point (ux, uy)
The dimensions from figure 76 are given by:

u r 1 = u x cos
u r 2 = u y sin
u r = u r1 + u r 2
u t 1 = u y cos
u t 2 = u x sin
u t = u t1 + u t 2

These equations will be combined in one matrix equation for the transformation of the Cartesian x-y
coordinate system into the r-t-() coordinate system:
u r cos sin u x
= (1)
u t sin cos u y
Transformation of Cartesian x-y distributed loads to cylindrical r-t forces

As mentioned before loads by the soil will be given (see later on in this appendix) in a Cartesian x-y
system. The vertical loads are positioned at the x-axis, the horizontal loads at the y-axis. The forces on
the nodes of the tunnel lining will be given in a cylindrical r-t-() system. The radial and tangential
forces are located at the r- and t-axis respectively and will be retrieved from distributed loads at these
axes.
x
Fv r

cos
y
v
t
r h
t
Fh
sin
77 | Distributed loads on the element of the tunnel structure
From figure 77 the following relation holds for the forces Fv and Fh in the Cartesian system:
Fv cos 0 v
=
h
(2)
F
h 0 sin
By substituting equation (2) into equation (1) (ur, ut, ux and uy have been replaced by r, t, v and h
respectively) the relation between the horizontal and vertical distributed loads and the radial and
tangential distributed loads is known (although r and t have been visualised as concentrated forces
in figure 77, their influence width of 1 makes them equal to a distributed load):
r cos 2 sin 2 v
=
t cos sin cos sin h

A.3 Uplift of embedded tunnel
A tunnel embedded in soil should be in vertical equilibrium at all time. Hence the upward floating
force by the hydrostatic water pressure should be compensated by the mass of the tunnel and mass
of the soil on top of this tunnel. For safety reasons a safety factor of mass = 0,9 is applied on the masses
of both tunnel and soil.
By use of Figure 16 on page 21 of the actual report the vertical distance between the water table and
an arbitrary point at the tunnels circumference with an angle holds:
h , w = x w x t + R(1 cos )
Where:
xw = Water table relative to mark NAP
xt = Top tunnel relative to mark NAP
Hence the water pressure at this location holds:

w ( ) = h , w w
Where:
w = Specific gravity water
The vertical water force on the tunnel lining at an angle is then given by:
F = R w () cos
So the total bottom force by the hydrostatic water pressure is then defined by:
3

2
Fw , up = Fd = R w ( 2 x w 2 x t ) + R 2w ( 2 + 21 )
1

2
For the cross-sectional surface of the soil on top of the tunnel it holds:

A soil = 2R (x 0 x t + R ) R 2
2
Where:
x0 = Ground level relative to mark NAP
Consequently the force (mass) of this soil continuum is:

Fsoil = soil A soil
Where:
soil = Specific gravity soil
Provided that the weight of the tunnel is omitted, it should hold:

Fwater = mass Fsoil (1)
The weight of the tunnel reads:

D
2
Ftunnel = concrete R 2 i
2

Where:
concrete = Specific gravity concrete

Di = Internal diameter tunnel
Now should hold:

Fwater = mass (Fsoil + Ftunnel ) (2)
The software application Maple 6 has been utilised to solve equations (1) and (2). As a result the
values of xt as presented in Figure 78 were retrieved for the soil and tunnel properties from this
study.
0 200 400 600 800 1000
(NAP) 0
Thickness h [mm]
-2,5
Top of tunnel relative to mark NAP xt [m]
Ground level (-4,74 m + NAP)

-5
-7,5
-10
nnel
ht tu
ad weig
-12,5 de
ding
Inclu
-15
Excluding dead
-17,5 weight tunnel
78 | Required depth projection tunnel to prevent floating
Each individual considered lining thickness should be prevented against floating. Subsequently the
value of a lining thickness of 100 mm has been applied. This one requires the deepest depth
projection (if the tunnels dead weight is included). Obviously thicker linings are heavier and
therefore require a more shallow minimum depth projection.
The minimum depth projection is set to: -15,85 m + NAP, hence a soil cover of 11,1 m (0,7D).

Appendix B
Ultimate resisting moment for steel
fibre reinforced concrete
Introduction
This appendix presents the calculation principal for the ultimate resisting moment of a reinforced
rectangular cross-section of concrete with any arbitrary stress-strain relation. The calculation has
been implemented in a Visual Basic .NET2 application.
stress strain
Ns1
xu
Nc,compr
Nd
Nc,tens
Ns2
79 | Forces and lever arms in the calculation
Both equilibrium of horizontal forces and equilibrium of bending moments should exist at all time:
ns
Fh = 0 N c + Fsj = N d (1)
j=1
ns
M = 0 M u = M c + M sj M N (2)
j =1
Where:
Nc = Normal force in concrete
Fsj = Steel force in reinforcement layer j
ns = Number of reinforcement layers
Nd = Acting normal force
Mu = Ultimate resisting moment
M = Contribution to Mu by element defined by its subscript
The following subscripts will be used throughout the calculation:

c = Concrete
sj = Steel reinforcement layer j
N = As a result of the acting normal force Nd
The normal force in concrete is principally in compression (negative), hence the value of Mc is
negative as well. Consequently the maximum value of Mu is reached if the contribution by concrete is
minimised. The concrete strain in the upper fibre of the cross-section is therefore set to the ultimate

compressive strain of the material 'cu. The concrete normal force Nc is then carried in the smallest
height of the concrete compressive zone possible.
The stress-strain diagram of concrete is spread over the height of the cross-section in order to
determine its resulting bending moment contribution Mc. The equilibrium of forces from equation (1)
is used to find the concrete strain at the bottom of the cross-section first.
Maximum concrete strain

The force resulting from a line segment in a multiple linear stress development (such as presented in
Figure 80) is determined first.
1 (1) 0
Stress
(2)
6 Strain
2
(3)
(6)
5 (5)
4 (4) 3
80 | Stress-strain diagram of concrete with tensile behaviour
The average stress in segment i is given by:

i
f ( )
i 1
av ,i = , then it holds for the normal force: N i = bh i av ,i
i i 1
The integral, that is the surface under the line segment, is simply determined for this linear
development:
i
fi + fi 1
f() = 2 ( i i1 )
i 1
Of course this principal can be applied on all individual line segments in the stress-strain diagram.
The total integral, from now on assigned as , follows from the sum of the preceding individual
integrals. Hence the integral in the upper fibre with strain 0 up to point i with strain i is:
i i
f() = i = f() + i1
0 i 1
If this integral is determined for each node of the stress-strain diagram, the normal force in the
concrete is known if the strain at arbitrary node i is the strain in the cross-sections bottom fibre. This
normal force then reads (by use of prior equations for Ni and av,i):
i
N ci = hb
i 0
The total normal force at the cross-section is known by performing this calculation on each node in
the concrete stress-strain diagram and by adding the steel forces due to the concrete strain at their
individual location to it. The strain in reinforcement layer j simply reads:
x sj
sj = (i 0 )
h
The strain that is connected to this strain follow from the multiple linear stress-strain relation for
reinforcement steel (see Figure 81):

0 if > su
f / if sy su (0)
s ms
fsj = fs sj /( sy ms ) if sy > > sy (1)
f / if - sy su (2)
s ms
0 if < su
The steel force Fsj for reinforcement layer j is:

Fsj = sjA sj met A sj = n sj sj 2
4
Stress
1 (1) 0
(2)
2 Strain
(3)
4 (4) 3
81 | Stress-strain diagram reinforcement steel
A complete set of resulting total normal forces in the cross-section on each critical point is gained if
this calculation procedure is repeated at every node of concretes stress-strain relation and on the
nodes of the steel relation for each individual reinforcement layer. Comparison of the forces in this
set to the actual acting normal force Nd makes it possible to find the line segment in the concrete
diagram where the actual strain in the bottom fibre is at. If, for instance, the steel force disappears (if
su is exceeded) a non linearity is found. Now the concrete strain closest to neutral (= 0) is used. Hence
for concrete and each individual reinforcement layer a small linear zone of strains (the line segment
in its stress-strain diagram) is known. These zones are zc for concrete and zsj for reinforcement layer j.
First of all: a straight line between two arbitrary nodes is defined by the following equation (see
Figure 82):
f() = ( i ) + fi
fi+1 fi
Where: =
i+1 i
i+1
fi+1
(i)
i
fi

i i+1
82 | Determination equation by nodes of a linear element
The total resulting normal force is:

ns
() ns
N tot = N c () + Fsj () = hb + j ( zsj+1 ) + fzsj A sj
j=1 0 j =1

fsj ( zsj+1 ) fsj ( zsj ) f() + fzc
With: j =
zsj+1 zsj
A sj and () = ( ) +
zc zc

( )
( )
= zc + fzc zc + zc
2 2

(
)
zc + fzc zc + zc ( )
( )
ns
2
N tot = hb + j zsj + fzsj A sj
0 j =1

( ) (
z c + zc + zc ns )
= 2 hb + j j zsj + fzsj A sj
0 j=1

Where: = zc + fzc
2
By setting Ntot equal to Nd it follows:

ns
0
N d = 2 zc + zc + zc A( 0 ) + ( 0 )
j
hb 2 2 j=1 hb
ns j zc fzsj A sj
Where: A =
j =1 hb
This can be written as:
a 2 b c = 0
ns j N ns
N
With: a = + , b = zc A d
j 0
, c = zc zc + A 0 + d 0
2 j=1 hb 2 hb j=1 hb hb
Consequently the solution for the strain at the bottom fibre is:
b b 2 4ac
1, 2 =
2a
Only one of these two strains is positioned within all boundary conditions (boundary nodes of the
zones in the stress-strain diagrams of concrete and steel). That value is therefore the maximum strain
in the cross-section.
If the values of the scalars and j equal zero (0), parameter a will turn out to be zero as well.
Consequently no valid solution is found by the equation for 1,2. A simpler calculation principal can
be used now. Namely the strain that is looked for is positioned at horizontal areas in all stress-strain
relations. The zones (line segments) in these diagrams are still known. This implies that the forces in
the reinforcement steel are known. Hence:
ns
N c = N d fzsj A sj
j=1
The concrete force is generally defined as:

f() + fzc
() 2
zc + zc ( )
fz zc + zc ( )
Nc = hb = hb = c hb
0 0 0 f() = fzc
if , which is the case in an
horizontal segment of the stress-strain diagram.
The maximum strain is now determined by::
N c ( 0 )
( N
) N
= fzc zc + zc c fzc = c 0 fzc zc + zc
hb hb hb
Concluding:
Nc
0 fzc zc + zc
= hb
Nc
fzc
hb

The ultimate resisting moment results from the equilibrium of bending moments in equation (2) and
generally holds:
ns
M u = M c + M sj M N
j =1
For that purpose the stress-strain relation between strains 0 and is spread over the entire height of
the cross-section.
The strain in each node is now converted to a lever arm relative to the upper fibre by:
0
xi = h i
0
The bending moment Mc is constructed of the bending moment of all individual segments in the
stress-strain relation combined:
nc
M c = M ci
i =1
These individual bending moments are determined by multiplying the surface under the stress-strain
section by the lever arm of that particular section. Hence: the integral of the stress-strain diagram
multiplied by the vertical distance x:
x
f xi x i 2 i+1
xi + 1 xi + 1
M ci = b f( x)x dx = b xi x 2 + (fi - xi x i )x dx = b xi x 3 + i x
xi xi 3 2 xi
f xi x i
M ci = xi (x i+13 x i 3 ) + i (xi+12 xi 2 )b
3 2
fi+1 fi
Where: xi =
x i+1 x i
For the bending moment by the reinforcement layers it holds:

ns ns
M s = M si = f( sj )A sj x sj
j =1 j =1
Where the determination of steel strain sj has been mentioned before and reads:
x sj
sj = ( 0 )
h
The bending moment by the acting normal force is:

h
MN = Nd
2
Consequently the ultimate resisting moment Mu is given by:

f xi x i
M u = xi (x i + 1 3 x i 3 ) + i (x i +1 2 x i 2 )b + f( sj )A sj x sj + N d h
ns
3 2 j=1 2
Validation with calculation principal Dutch building code NEN 6720

For this validation the following rectangular cross-section is considered:
Height h = 500 mm
Width b = 1.000 mm
Concrete cover c = 35 mm
Diameter rebars s = 12 mm
Partial load factor = 1
Acting normal force N = -2.000kN (druk)
Reinforcement percentage = 0,21%, thus steel area As = 1.050 mm
Concrete strength class = C35/45

With design strength f'c = 27 MPa and design tensile strength fc = 1,65 MPa
Steel = FeB435/500 with design strength fs = 435 MPa
The steel force is determined by:

N s = A s fs = 1.050 435 = 456.750 N
From the equilibrium of horizontal forces it follows:

Fh = 0 N c = N s + N = 456.750 + 2.000 10 3 = 2.456.750 N
The height of the concrete compressive zone reads:

Nc 2.456.750
xu = = = 121,3 mm
0 ,75f' b b 0 ,75 27 1.000
Accordingly it holds for the ultimate resisting moment:

Mu = Mc + Ms + MN
Where:
M c = 0 ,38 N c x u = 0 ,3889 2.456.750 121,3 = 115,9 10 6 Nmm = 115 ,9 kNm
M s = N s (h c s / 2 ) = 456.750 (500 35 6 ) = 209 ,6 10 6 Nmm = 209 ,6 kNm
h 500
MN = N = 2.000 10 3 = 500 10 6 Nmm = 500 kNm
2 2
Hence follows:
M u = 113 ,2 + 209 ,6 + 500 = 593 ,7 kNm
The application, wherein the described calculation principal has been implemented, returns the
following value:
M u = 593 ,7 kNm
The individual contributions are:
M c = 115 ,9 kNm; M s = 209 ,6 kNm; M N = 500 kNm
Consequently no variations are found between the values resulting from the custom calculation
prinipal and the Dutch code.
Validation with method by Den Hollander

Voor de validatie zijn de volgende data gebruikt:
Height h = 500 mm
Width b = 1.000 mm
No rebars are applied
Acting normal force N = -2.000 kN
Concrete strength class = C180/210 with a stress-strain diagram as described in this report
For this validation an Excel-sheet from the graduation thesis of Den Hollander [9] is used. That sheet
searches for an equilibrium of horizontal forces by iteration. In order to retrieve a valid result from
that method prestressing steel has to be added to Den Hollanders calculation. A steel area of 1 mm
has been positioned at a distance from the upper fibre of 0 mm in order to exclude the steel force
from the ultimate resisting moment. The model generated a bending moment capacity of:
M u = 801 kNm

The Visual Basic application from this study returned the following:
M u = 803 ,9 kNm
A difference of only +0,36 % is observed.
Both in case of reinforced concrete and steel fibre reinforced concrete the application implemented
returns very accurate ultimate resisting moments. Consequently it is assumed that this method can
be applied in this study.

Appendix C
Safety factors in shield driven
tunnels
Building codes prescribe calculation methods and safety ratios for most standard structures. Several
additional regulations deal with special requirements for various specific structures like bridges, or
sheet piles. The structure of a shield driven tunnel shows several differences with normal structures
like bridges or buildings, for instance its vital interaction with the surrounding soil. However no
additional regulations exist for this type of structure. This chapter therefore discusses the policy from
Dutch and German building codes from the bottom to present a safety philosophy for shield driven
tunnels in the end.
Safety factors in building codes exist to include the probability of several risk aspects in the
calculation. In modern building codes these safety factors are split up in partial safety factors for the
strength or resistance of the structure and for the stress on the structure by loading. Via a simple
check its possible to check whether a structure is able to resist unforeseen risks as well. The check is
given by the following basic equation:
Rd
1 (30)
Sd
Where Rd represents the resistance of the structure, including partial safety factors for the strength,
and Sd represents the stress to the structure, including partial safety factors for loading.
The partial safety factors will be discussed in separate sections in this appendix. This appendix
describes the policy in the Dutch and German codes for partial safety factors on the resistance side
for concrete. The partial safety factors on the stress or loading side of the structure, including the
influence of soil, will be dealt with as well.
Next a combination of those partial safety factors and a safety philosophy that is applicable for the
unique structure of shield driven tunnels are presented.
Resistance of the structure

The risk of the strength (or resistance) of a material as built being less than the strength as foreseen in
the design, is introduced by so-called material factors in calculations according to the Dutch concrete
code NEN 6720 and the German building code DIN 1045 neu. These factors reduce the strength of a
material in the input of a calculation. Implying the material factors are introduced before the
calculation of the strength is performed.
The use of material factors from the building codes for concrete is limited by a maximum strength
class of concrete. The NEN is valid for strength classes up to C53/65 (ordinary concrete) and
additional recommendations exist for values up to C90/105 (high strength concrete); the DIN can be
used up to C90/105 as well. For ultra high strength concrete (C135/150 to C180/210) only French

recommendations [1] exist. Results from these recommendations will be used for very high strength
concrete (C90/105 to C135/150) as well.
Regulations for ordinary concrete and reinforcement steel will be discussed. This appendix shows the
recommendations for very high strength and ultra high strength concrete.
Ordinary concrete
Building codes know three levels of compressive strengths of concrete:
1. Characteristic compressive strength (f'ck)
2. Representative value compressive strength (f'crep)
3. Design value compressive strength (f'c)
The final value, the design value, is used for strength calculations. In the Dutch NEN 6720 its value is
defined by:
f' crep
f' c = (31)
mc
Parameter mc represents the material factor for concrete, with a value of 1,2. In case of accidental
loading situation (gas explosion, collision and impact load) the material factor may be reduced to 1,0.
For the representative compressive strength holds:
f' crep = 0 ,72f' ck (32)
The representative compressive strength is the long-term uniaxial compressive strength of concrete.
The short-term uniaxial strength is retrieved by multiplying the 28-days cube strength of concrete by
0,85, from now on referred to as u. The long-term strength follows from the product of the short-
term strength and another 0,85, referred to as t. The product of both scalars is 0,72 and has been
included in equation (32).
Please note that the Eurocode no longer uses the 28-days cube strength for f'ck, it has been replaced by
the 28-days uniaxial compressive strength from cylindrical test specimens.
The original German code DIN 1045 used one overall safety factor to include all risks of a structure at
once. Code DIN 1045 neu was adopted to implement the partial safety factors from the future
Eurocode in a German code before the actual introduction of the Eurocode. Therefore the DIN 1045
neu makes use of the uniaxial compressive strength f'ck as well:
f' crep = term f ' ck = 0 ,85f' ck (33)
The value of material factor mc from the DIN neu has a different value from the NEN: for in situ
structures the value holds 1,5; for prefabricated elements from a constantly supervised production
process the value is reduced to 1,35. In case of extraordinary loading situations a value of 1,3 is
sufficient.
For reinforced ordinary concrete the tensile strength is negligible compared to tensile forces in steel
reinforcement bars, therefore no tensile strength will be taken into account.
Material factors for steel reinforcement bars are equal in both the Dutch and German codes. The design
value for the steel strength fs is given by the equation:
f
fs = sk (34)
ms
Where fsk represents the characteristic steel strength. The value for the material factor for steel ms is
given by 1,15 in both codes. It may be reduced to 1,0 in case of extraordinary loading situation in the
German code and in case of gas explosions, collisions and impact loads in the Dutch code.
Table 10 gives an overview of all partial safety factors related to the strength of the material for both
concrete and steel. For a comparison of partial safety factors for concrete the ratio between the

characteristic and representative compressive strengths has been split up in the two -s (u and t)
that have been discussed after equation (32) already. This is essential to show the difference between
the cube strength from the NEN and the cylindrical strength from the DIN.
Table 10 | Partial safety factors for strength (resistance) according NEN 6720 and DIN 1045 neu
Material NEN 6702 DIN 1045 neu

Concrete
Material factor mc 1,2 (1,0) 1) 1,35 2) (1,3) 3)
Multiaxial to uniaxial u 0,85 -
Short-term to long-term t 0,85 0,85
Total partial safety factor c = mc / (u t) 1,67 (1,39) 1) 1,59 (1,53) 3)
Steel
Material factor ms 1,15 (1,0) 1) 1,15 (1,0) 3)
1)
Reduced material factor for a gas explosion, collision or an impact load
2)
Factor for prefabricated elements, for in situ elements holds mc = 1,5
3)
Reduced material factor for an extraordinary loading situation
Very high strength and ultra high strength concrete

Its been mentioned before that the French recommendations [1] are the only present regulations for
design calculations on ultra high strength concrete. To come to a conclusion for the adaptation of the
strengths of this type of concrete in comparison to ordinary concrete the Dutch CUR
Recommendation 97 and the Germen code DIN 1045 neu, both valid for concrete strength classes up
to C90/105, will be included in the text below as well.
Tensile strengths will be discussed separately in here, for they have been neglected in the text
concerning ordinary concrete.
Compressive stresses
In CUR Recommendation 97 a higher level of safety is required for concrete strength classes from
C53/65. The additional safety is requested because of the more brittle behaviour of high strength
concrete and has been included in an increment of the combined ratio (u t). This ratio should be
multiplied by the following scalar 'c:
785 f' ck
' c = (35)
720
In the German DIN 1045 neu the safety should be increased from C55/67 as well. The Germans
multiply the material factor of concrete by the scalar 'c:
1
' c = 1 (36)
f' ck
1,1
500
Although both methods appear very different, this difference is actually relatively small. Inversion of
the German increment and conversion of the included characteristic compressive strength from
multiaxial to uniaxial in the Dutch equation, gives:
1 f' 1 f'
NEN: = 1,1 ck and DIN: = 1,1 ck 1 (37) and (38)
' c 612 ' c 500
The CUR and the DIN both deal with reinforced concrete without the addition of steel fibres. Steel
fibres however ensure a more ductile behaviour of concrete, resulting in less brittleness. According to
[6] the recommended extra safety is superfluous for high strength, very high strength and ultra high
strength steel fibre reinforced concretes. Implying the same safety strategy from as before can be
applied for these ranges of concrete strength classes if steel fibres have been added.
Tensile stresses

The increasing influence of tensile behaviour in very high strength and ultra high strength concrete
mainly results from the steel fibres in the material. Among others the orientation of these fibres,
which can be directed during the casting process, influences the magnitude of the tensile stress1. This
fact can beneficially influence the resistance of the material; however if the orientation as casted
changes from the orientation as designed, serious loss of resistance might occur. To cope with all
unforeseen fibre related decrements of the structures strength, an additional partial safety factor is
introduced in [1]. This factor adapts all tensile parameters influenced by the steel fibres from the
stress-strain diagram in Figure 27 on page 34 of the actual report. The extra factor, f, should be
added in ultimate limit state (ULS) calculations only. In serviceability limit state (SLS) related
calculations, like deflection, the extra safety is redundant.
The values of the partial safety factor for the influence of steel fibres f hold [1]:
f = 1,3 for standard loading situations
f = 1,5 for accidental loading situations
The new equations for the influenced parameters from the stress-strain diagram for ultra high
strength concrete in figure 27 are:
w 0 ,3 f ( w 0 , 3 )
0 ,3 = + el and fc = (39) and (40)
lc f E el fK
w 1% f ( w 1% )
1% = + el and f1% = (41) and (42)
lc f E el fK
Stress on the structure

The risk of the stress on the structure being more severe, implying higher loads, then used in design
calculations is introduced by so-called loading factors. These partial safety factors have been
described in NEN 6702 and DIN 1045 neu.
Loading on a shield driven tunnel is mainly introduced by the surrounding soil. Therefore this
section will deal with this material especially and will try to combine its effects with the effects of
loading factors.
Loading factors from the codes

Loads in both the NEN and DIN are subdivided in three different categories:
1. Static loads (dead weight and other permanent loads)
2. Live loads (mobile loads and varying loads)
3. Prestress force
Loading on a structure can be favourable and unfavourable relative to the overall loading situation.
Table 11 shows all loading factors for the Dutch and German codes. In the Dutch code all loading
factors can be reduced to the value of 1,0 in case of a gas explosion, collision or an impact load.
Table 11 | Partial loading factors NEN 6720 (safety class 3) and DIN 1045 neu
Static load g Live load q Prestress force p

Loading situation NEN 1) DIN 2) NEN DIN NEN DIN
Favourable 0,9 (1,0) 1,0 0 (1,0) 3) 0 1,0 1,0
3)
Unfavourable 1,35 (1,0) 1,35 1,5 (1,0) 1,5 1,0 1,0

3) 3)
1)
NEN 6720; 2) DIN 1045 neu; 3) Reduced factors for gas explosion, collision or impact load
1 Markovic, I., High-Performance Hybrid-Fibre Concrete: Development and Utilisation, dissertation. Delft:
Delft University Press, January 2006

Soil
Soil both supports and loads a tunnel structure. This interaction causes the tunnel to change its shape
to an oval, as discussed in the previous chapter. This oval can be formed by an increment of the
diameter in horizontal direction, a so-called lying oval, or by an increasing diameter in vertical
direction, a standing oval. In both cases the main loading and supporting occur in different regions
along the rings circumference. It might be necessary to appoint regions with either a loading or a
supporting function. In future changes of the grounds surface level or additional loads on the
grounds surface (for instance nearby structures) might occur. Finding the combination of loading
and supporting regions that results in the most sever loading case of the tunnel lining is nearly
impossible.
Forces and moments in the lining resulting from calculations on the tunnels ring behaviour, very
much depend on loads and support from the surrounding soil, which depend on its density and
stiffness. Introduction of loading factors to the loads by the soil does not necessarily imply a more
severe loading situation of the tunnel structure. Increasing loads normally result in an increasing ring
force. A higher ring force itself can impose a higher moment capacity of the segments and can limit
the rotations in longitudinal joints. Up to a certain degree of loading both given results influence the
overall ring behaviour of the lining in a beneficial way.
Risks related to the soil and therefore related to the loading and support of the tunnel should be
introduced in a different way than codes prescribe for ordinary tunnels. The next section therefore
discusses a overall safety philosophy for shield driven tunnels.
Safety philosophy shield driven tunnels

In the design of shield driven tunnels loads on the structure mainly depend on the depth of the
tunnel and type of soil surrounding it. In design calculations of ordinary structures this load would
be multiplied by the partial loading factor before the calculation is performed.
In tunnel design however an increasing load does not necessarily mean an increasing risk. Increasing
loads imply increasing normal ring forces. Before it was mentioned this can beneficially influence the
ring behaviour of the lining.
Therefore a different approach to introduce the partial safety factors in design calculations on shield
driven tunnels is required.
Apply safety factors after calculation

To tackle the given problem safety ratios are normally applied after the calculation has been made.
Implying that the stress on the structure (Sd) the reaction force is multiplied by safety factors ()
and compared to its resistance (Rd) the ultimate capacity of the structure for that particular type of
reaction force. The rule from equation (43) is now given by:
Rd
1 (43)
S d
Combining partial safety factors

Now its decided that safety factors will be used at the end of a calculation, two options for the way
to apply these factors still remain:
1. Apply material factors in ultimate capacity calculations and introduce loading factors in
the final check.
Now the requirement from equation (43) can be rewritten as:
R d ( mc , ms )
1 (44)
bSd

Where b is the loading factor that represents the safety for interaction between the concrete
tunnel lining and the surrounding soil.
2. Combine material factors and loading factor to introduce one overall safety factor in the
final check only.
The requirement now holds:
Rd R
= d 1 (45)
m b S d S d
Parameter m is the combined material factor for the materials in the lining and now represents
the overall safety factor.
Both approaches know a combined loading factor that should contain several risk aspects.
Combined loading factor for approaches 1 and 2

The combined loading factor b represents a safety margin for interaction between the tunnel lining
and the surrounding soil. Therefore it does not include a loading factor only, but deals with various
uncertainties. For the Statentunnel in the light rail project RandstadRail in Rotterdam, the IGWR
included the following features in the loading factor2:
Nature of loading (dead weight, live load at ground surface, fire)
Accuracy of the applied calculation method
Segmented shield driven tunnels are relatively new types of structure
Influences of placing tunnel segments and grouting is not fully understood yet
Experience from other tunnelling projects
The value for the partial loading factor that should cover this enumeration was set to b = 1,5.
Combined material factor for approach 2

The IGWR decided to use the second approach (equation (45)) to combine partial safety factors from
NEN-codes. For the combined material factor m a value of 1,15 was used. From Table 10 follows this
factor holds for reinforcement steel instead of concrete. To prevent brittle fracture of a structure from
reinforced concrete, reinforcement steel should yield first before a structure collapses. This implies
the reinforcement bars have to fail, therefore their material factor has been introduced. The overall
safety factor for the Statentunnel in Rotterdam therefore holds: = m b = 1,7.
In case of very high strength or ultra high strength steel fibre reinforced concrete tunnel segments
additional steel reinforcement might be excluded. Now the tensile region of the concrete itself should
fail. In case of the second approach a combined material factor of 1,2 should be used according NEN
6720 and 1,5 should be used for the DIN 1045 neu.
Changes in the stress-strain diagram for approach 2

Material factors are introduced in the final check from equation (45). Hence material factors are
excluded in the ultimate capacity calculations for all reaction forces. This implies a serious adaptation
of the stress-strain diagram of concrete and reinforcement steel, for the stresses in all diagrams have
been reduced by these material factors. Changes in the stresses might influence the size of the strains
as well.
Approaches to implement the deformed stress-strain diagram are:
A. No changes to the strains are made.
This method has been shown as approach A in figure 83. The basic shape of the diagram (ratio
between 'c and 'u) shows no differences with the original diagram. However the slope of the
linear elastic section, the modulus of elasticity of the material, increases.
2 Taffijn, E., J. Gerritsen, H. Pachen, RandstadRail DO Ringberekeningen gesegmenteerde tunnel
Noorderkanaal SFD. Rotterdam: Ingenieursbureau Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, May 2002 (Dutch)

B. Elastic behaviour stays unharmed; compressive yield stress and tensile stress at point of
cracking do change.
Approach B in figure 83 shows the same linear elastic behaviour of the original and new diagram. A
new value has to be assigned to the compressive yield stress. The figure shows the simple adaptation.
Exactly the same change will be used for the tensile stress where cracking occurs for the first time
(see figure 27 on page 34), this automatically adapts the values of the other points in the diagram to
the new situation (except for the ultimate tensile strain).
compr. stress (')

compr. stress (')
approach A approach B
f'crep f'crep
f'c f'c
original original
f' f'
arctan mc c
arctan c

'c compr. strain (') 'c compr. strain (')
'
'c 'u 'c1 = c 'u
mc
83 | Adapted stress-strain diagrams in case material factors are excluded from the strength calculations
This study uses approach B to adapt the stress-strain diagram in case an overall safety factor is used
(approach 2). Preservation of the linear elastic behaviour is thought to be more important than
retaining the ratio between the compressive yield stress and the ultimate compressive stress.
Former code for approach 2

Its been mentioned before that the German code DIN 1045 neu was introduced in order to be able to
use the partial safety factors, material factors and loading factors, even before the future Eurocode
will be introduced. The former code DIN 1045 only used on overall safety factor. Its version from
1988 has been used in German tunnelling design up to January 1st 1996. The DIN 1045 subdivides
two overall loading factors:
= 2,1 in case the structure fails on compression
= 1,75 in case the structure fails on bending
Please note the difference based on failure of concrete (compression) or reinforcement steel
(bending). In the present DIN 1045 neu this difference is established by the different material factors
of both materials.

T.W. Groeneweg
T.W. Groeneweg
Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete


TW Groeneweg - Shield Driven Tunnels in UHSC

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TW Groeneweg - Shield Driven Tunnels in UHSC

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

T.W.

Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

The following members took part in the graduation committee:

Latin lower case

Latin upper case

Greek lower case

Chapter 2 State of the art 5

Chapter 3 Ring behaviour embedded lining 13

Chapter 4 Grouting phase 43

Chapter 5 Additional structural mechanisms 55

Chapter 6 Evaluation lining thickness reduction 75

Chapter 7 Conclusions and recommendations 85

1.1 Introduction to shield driven tunnels

1.3 Problem definition

1.5 Solution approach and arrangement of this report

2 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

Figure 2 schematically shows the structure of this report.

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 3

Ring behaviour Uplift loading case Introduction Torsion in segments

Required lining Required lining Required lining Required lining

Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 5

Tunnel design, required thickness,

2 | Visualisation of this reports structure

4 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

2.2 Shield driven tunnels

Tunnel project Internal diameter [m] Lining thickness [m] Ratio

2.2.1 Assembly process

3 | Dimensions and elements of the tunnel lining

2.2.2 Tunnel segments

2.2.3 Thrust jack configurations

6 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

2.3 Ultra high strength concrete

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 7

Table 2 | Classification of concrete strength classes [19]

Term Range strength classes

C27/35 C65/85 C130/150 C170/200 B180/210 (BSI)

6 | Concrete materials: significant increase of density and homogeneity for BSI

8 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

2.4 Case study: Tunnel motorway A13/16

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 9

8 | Surroundings of future motorway A13/16 in the north of Rotterdam 2006, TW GROENEWEG

Urban area (future) Motorway (future) N

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 11

A13 1 km N470 HSL N209 Rotte A16

12 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

3.2 Modelling of ring behaviour

3.2.1 Concrete tunnel segments

14 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

Where b is half the original width of the tunnel segment.

3.2.2 Longitudinal joints

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 15

16 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

400 joint opened

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 17

3.2.3 Ring joints

18 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete

The total spring stiffnes of the ring joint is determined as follows:

15 | Determination of spring stiffness for ring joints

Reduction of the tunnel lining thickness 19

Then the stiffness of a spring representing this phenomenon is defined as:

The final spring stiffness for one ring connection holds:

3.2.4 Soil interaction

Loads from the soil

20 Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete