Title:
Analysis of High Stresses in Tunnel Boring Machine Joints: Experimental Study and Theoretical Justification
Author(s):
Cosimo Iasiello and Alejandro Pérez Caldentey
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
117
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
55-69
Keywords:
concentrated loads; confined concrete; D-regions; experimental program; joints; tunnel boring machine (TBM) tunnel design
DOI:
10.14359/51721365
Date:
5/1/2020
Abstract:
Engineering practice in the design of tunnels built with boring machines (TBMs) results in joints between segments transmitting high pressures during the service life of the structure. These pressures often exceed two and three times the design compressive strength of concrete, which are, more or less, the limits allowed by modern concrete standards for maximum pressure in a concrete block subjected to a concentrated load. This practice is based on experimental results which show that joints can function at higher stresses in the confined conditions that occur in the joints between tunnel segments. The fact that standards do not seem to acknowledge the empirical evidence of this practice, and the fact that
current practice overrules standards, may be attributed to normal practice where tunnels are designed by engineers specializing in geotechnics while concrete standards are written by engineers specializing in structural design and to the fact that communication
between these two groups is often poor. The aim of this paper is to present the study of a real case and to document and analyze tests carried out, taking this example as a reference, to try to explain the adequate behavior of tunnel structures, despite going beyond code-of-practice limits. For this, an ad-hoc experimental campaign was carried out representing the actual geometry of the tunnel lining and simulating varying degrees of longitudinal confinement by varying the degree of geometrical confinement through the use of different bearing plate widths. The results show that although the failure load exceeds the standards’ recommendations, the adequate joint behavior can be justified by the experimental evidence which clearly shows that the limit on the maximum compressive stress proposed in current Standards is overly conservative. Even so, doubts remain regarding whether these conditions are really met at the region close to the ring ends.
Related References:
1. AASHTO, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” seventh edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2014.
2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
3. EN 1992, “Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
4. fib, “Model Code for Concrete Structures,” Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Oct. 2013.
5. Schreyer, W. “Eignungsprüfungen für die Tübbingauskleidung der 4. Röhre Elbtunnel,” Stuva 1997 Forschung + Praxis, No. 37, 1997.
6. STUVA, “Eignungsprüfungen 4. Röhre Elbtunnel. Versuche zur Verdrehsteifigkeit,” F4R-KE62, Sept. 1996.
7. EN 206-1, “Part 1: Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity,” Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN), 2000.
8. Iasiello, C., “Behaviour of Transversal Joints in Prefabricated Tunnel Linings. Experimental and Theoretical Study,” PhD thesis, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, Sept. 2017.
9. Spieth, H. P., “Das Verhalten von Beton unter hoher örtlicher Pressung und Teilbelastung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Spannbetonverankerungen,” dissertation, Technical University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 1959.
10. Hawkins, N. M., “The Bearing Strength of Concrete Loaded through Rigid Plates,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 20, No. 62, 1968, pp. 31-40. doi: 10.1680/macr.1968.20.62.31
11. Niyogi, S. K., “Concrete Bearing Strength-Support, Mix, Size Effect,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 100, 1974, pp. 1685-1701.
12. Niyogi, S. K., “Bearing Strength of Concrete—Geometric Variation,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 99, 1973, pp. 1471-1490.
13. Meyerhof, G. G., “The Bearing Capacity of Concrete and Rock,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 4, No. 12, 1974, pp. 107-116.
14. Shelson, W., “Bearing Capacity of Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 54, No. 5, May 1957, pp. 405-414.
15. Ince, R., and Arici, E., “Size Effect in Bearing Strength of Concrete Cubes,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 18, No. 8, Oct. 2004.
16. Pérez Caldentey, A.; Marchetto, F.; Peiretti, H. C.; and Villareal, J. I., “Plate-Anchored Reinforcement Bars: A New Simple and Physical Model for Practical Applications,” Engineering Structures, V. 52, 2013, pp. 168-178. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.02.019
17. Au, T., and Baird, D. L., “Bearing Capacity of Concrete Blocks,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 56, No. 9, Sept. 1957, pp. 869-879.
18. Marchetto, F.; Pérez Caldentey, A. P.; and Peiretti, H. C., “Structural Performance of Corner Joints Subjected to a Closing Moment Using Mechanical Anchorages: An Experimental Study,” Structural Concrete, V. 17, No. 6, 2016, pp. 987-1002. doi: 10.1002/suco.201500222
19. Leonhardt, F., and Mönnig, E., “Vorlesungen über Massivbau: Teil 2 Sonderfälle der Bemessung im Stahlbetonbau,” Springer, 1975.