Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2018, Article ID 9637838, 16 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9637838

Research Article
A Structural Calculation Model of Shield Tunnel Segment:
Heterogeneous Equivalent Beam Model

Mingfeng Lei ,1,2 Dayong Lin,1 Chenghua Shi,1 Jianjun Ma ,3 and Weichao Yang1
1
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China
2
China Construction Fifth Engineering Division Crop., Ltd., Changsha, China
3
School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Jianjun Ma; jianjun_ma@wzu.edu.cn

Received 23 May 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018; Published 26 August 2018

Academic Editor: Jian Sun

Copyright © 2018 Mingfeng Lei et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
A heterogeneous equivalent beam model (HEB model) of the shield tunnel segment structure is proposed based on a systematical
analysis on the stress state of the cross section of segment joints. This model treats a noncontinuous segment structure as
a continuous heterogeneous structure, on the basis of the principle of equivalent stress state on a section and equivalent
conversion of the mechanical parameters. For a comprehensive demonstration of the proposed HEB model, an interpretative
solution of equivalent mechanical parameters of the joint section is obtained through theoretical derivation, and a specific iterative
computation flow is provided in accordance. Model validation and comparative analysis are also conducted for two industrial
applications. It is found that the iterative process of calculation has good convergence, leading to reliable numerical results for all
cases under consideration. Resulting simulations reveal that the proposed HEB model can reflect the effect of joints on overall
rigidity of a segment structure. Compared with the computation results obtained using other models presented in the literature,
there are smaller axial force deviation and larger bending moment deviation (up to 20% or higher), demonstrating that the model
selection is important in design and computation of a segment structure of shield tunnels. The proposed model and analysis for
model performance may provide useful reference for engineers in shield tunnel community.

1. Introduction much more difficult than monolithic lining. In the open

literature, comprehensive studies on the calculation model
Shield technique has been widely applied in the construction for shield segment structure have been conducted.
of urban subway and underwater tunnels owing to its high In 1978, International Tunneling Association (ITA)
level of mechanization, rapid construction, and minimal established a specialized team for collecting calculation
environmental impact [1, 2]. The design of the segment models for shield tunnel segments. ITA supplemented
structure is of critical importance for the application of updated data according to the industrial development. The
shield technique and project construction, in terms of both published summary in 1988 shows that the design model for
the safety of tunnel structure and construction cost. Nu- tunnel structure at that time covers continuum or non-
merous engineering reports show that segmental lining continuum models, elastic foundation beam models,
accounts for 30% to 50% of the total cost of a tunnel convergence-constraint models, and empirical methods
constructed by shield technique [3]. [5, 6].
Unlike traditional monolithic tunnel lining structures, In recent decades, along with the massive development
segmental lining is a noncontinuous structure with vertical of urban rail transportation, studies on the calculation model
and transverse joints. The mechanical behavior of each of shield tunnel segment have made a great progress.
segment is affected by structural and mechanical charac- Multiple structural calculation models, including uniform
teristics of joints [4]. Therefore, segmental lining is more rigidity ring model (UR model), modified uniform rigid-
complex, as both calculation and analysis of the stress state is ity ring model (MUR model), free hinge ring model,
2 Advances in Civil Engineering

beam-spring model, and beam-joint model, have been structures in their local range can be regarded as a beam
proposed [7], as shown in Figure 1. element. However, the cross-sectional parameters of a beam
Ye et al. [8] comprehensively analyzed the performance element (i.e., elastic modulus and geometrical parameters)
of these calculation models for the shield tunnel segment. are different from those of a segment section. Based on this
They found that the UR model completely ignores the effect idea, the HEB model with segment ring composed of the
of segmental joint, which is obviously different from the beam element is established, as shown in Figure 2. In this
actual situation. This model results in higher internal force of model, parameters of the section in the local range of joint
the hard formation and relatively less deformation of the are converted equivalently according to the actual stress state
weak formation, leading to increased security risks [8]. The on the section of joint.
MUR model is carried out by reducing the segment stiffness
and increasing bending moment coefficients, resulting in
greater randomness and uncertainty [9–12]. The free hinge 3. Analysis on Mechanical Properties of
ring model takes the segment joint as a single-hinge
Equivalent Beam Element of Joint
structure and thus does not reflect the properties of force
transfer on the joint section. In addition, this model is 3.1. Basic Assumptions. In the mechanical calculation of the
a nonstatic system, although it can provide a static solution shield segment structure, a shield segment is always taken as
with the support of a tunnel surrounding rock, the ground a bending element; that is, only its bending moment and
resistance of tunnel surrounding rock cannot be calculated, axial force are considered. The finite element method is
and therefore, this model is characterized by certain levels of normally applied to calculate the distribution of internal
limitations and uncertainty [13]. In fact, the beam-spring forces on each cross section. Then, the damage phase method
model and the beam-joint model can better reflect the effect in which the shear properties are neglected is employed to
of segment joint on the stiffness of the whole ring structure. check its bearing capacity. Studies on the beam-spring model
However, the theoretical basis for selecting the spring co- showed that if the shear stiffness of a circular joint is set to be
efficient has not been well investigated; thus the spring smaller, the bending moment of its main cross section turns
coefficient is estimated based on the model test or engi- out to be smaller accordingly. Therefore, for security con-
neering experience, leading to a certain level of randomness siderations, the shear stiffness of circular joints is usually set
in modelling results [12, 14, 15]. to be infinite [16]. This means that mechanical properties of
Although the design, calculation, and modelling of a joint equivalent beam element only rely on the cross-
shield tunnel segment structures have attracted consid- sectional parameter of its longitudinal joint. As such, the
erable attentions, a variety of problems still need further following hypotheses are applied:
investigation. Based on comprehensive analysis on the
stress characteristics and the properties of force transfer on (1) Shearing stiffness of bolt and friction of section can
the joint between shield tunnel segments, the current study effectively resist shear force at the joint; that is, no
converts a noncontinuous segment structure into a con- obvious deformation is generated in both sides of the
tinuous heterogeneous equivalent beam structure through joint [17].
equivalent conversion of mechanical parameters of the (2) Based on structural mechanics, only the effect of
joint section. Mechanical parameters of the joint section axial force and bending moment on the displacement
are also deduced under different working conditions to of arch structure is considered (i.e., the effect of shear
establish a new calculation model for the shield tunnel stiffness is ignored).
segment. This model is significant, as it treats the non- (3) The deformation of joint section complies with the
continuous shield segment joint as an equivalent con- plane section assumption in all planes and meets the
tinuous structure with only tiny changes on the deformation compatibility.
mechanical and deformation characteristics; and most
(4) The stress of the concrete at the end of a joint is
importantly, it is capable to capture the stress character-
distributed linearly in the form of trapezoid and
istics and the properties of force transfer on the joint
triangle shapes, respectively, corresponding to fully
comprehensively. The performance of this model has been
contact (original joint section) and opening states
demonstrated through two industrial applications from
(partial loss of contact) of a joint connection during
the literature. The proposed HEB model and the com-
service life.
prehensive analysis presented for the HEB model may
provide useful reference for engineers and scholars in the (5) Compressive deformation δ0 of the compressed
community of shield tunnel construction. concrete at segment joint obeys the following
equation [18–20]:
2. Establishment and Basic Idea of HEB Model σx
δ0 � , (1)
Ec
Engineering practice and theoretical studies show that the
section of a segment joint is used to maintain the balance of where Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete, σ is the
internal force and transfer forces, which is similar to the maximum compressive stress at the edge of concrete,
force-transferring property of reinforced concrete cross and x is the effective height of compressed area of
section [1]. Therefore, the segment joints and the partial a joint section.
Advances in Civil Engineering 3

EI ηEI

(a) (b)
Shear spring Rigid spring

Hinge
Rotation spring
Rotation spring

(c) (d)

M Δθ M
n 2 1

a2 a1
Seg
nt me s
me Joint nt
Seg

(e)

Figure 1: Structural models of the shield segment [7]. (a) UR model. (b) MUR model. (c) Free hinge ring model. (d) Beam-spring model. (e)
Beam-joint model.

3.2. Positive Bending Moment and Small where N and M are the axial force and bending moment of the
Eccentric Compression section, respectively; σ c,max and σ c,min refer to the compressive
stress outside and inside the joint section, respectively; h
3.2.1. Stress Characteristics of the Original Section. A seg- and b refer to the thickness and width of the segment,
ment joint force diagram under positive bending moment respectively; n is the number of bolts in this segment; Tb
and small eccentric compression is shown in Figure 3(a); is the pulling force of a single bolt; and h0 is the distance
assuming the stress in the diagram is positive, the from the centroid of bolt to the internal edge. The de-
following equations can be obtained based on static formation compatibility and plane cross-sectional as-
equilibrium: sumption can be applied to solve the strain at bolt:

bh h0
εb � εc,min + 􏼐ε −ε 􏼑, (3)
􏽘 F � 0, N � 􏼐σ + σ c,min 􏼑 − nTb , h c,max c,min
2 c,max
(2) where εb is the strain at bolt in the joint section and εc,max
bh2 h and εc,min refer to the inside and outside edge strains of
􏽘 M � 0, M � 􏼐σ −σ 􏼑 + nTb 􏼠 − h0 􏼡,
12 c,max c,min 2 concrete in the joint section, respectively.
4 Advances in Civil Engineering

p1

q1 q1

Joint element
45°

qr qr

45°

g
q2 q2

p1 + g

(a)
l1 + l2
b, h,
Ec b, h, E c
b′, h′, Eeq
′

Cross profile of joint

(b)

Figure 2: Structural calculation model of shield tunnel segment with HEB model: (a) Structural calculation model; (b) Equivalent beam
element of joint.

A joint section consists of concrete, sealing rubber σ c,max

εc,max � ,
stripe, and force transferring cushion. Therefore, the Eeq
elastic modulus of this composite section needs to be (6)
calculated based on the principle of equivalence. As σ
εc,min � c,min .
shown in Figure 4, its compressive deformation prop- Eeq
erties are
N l1 + l2 􏼁 Nl1 Nl2 With further initial pretightening force of bolt, there is
� + , (4)
Eeq A Ec A Ep A
T0 − Tb � εb K, (7)
where Eeq is the equivalent compressive elastic modulus of
where K is the tensile stiffness of bolt, K � Es As in which Es
the joint beam element; A is the cross-sectional area; l1 is the
is the elastic modulus of bolt and As is the sectional area of
length of the concrete section for joint section calculation,
a single bolt, and T0 is the initial pretightening force of the
and it takes twice the cover thickness of concrete for pro-
bolt.
tection, which depends on the working environment and
Solving (3), (6), and (7) simultaneously,
structure type; l2 is the thickness of the sealing rubber strip
and force transferring cushion, and it can be taken as 5 mm K h
in most circumstances; and Ep is the elastic modulus of the Tb � T0 − 􏼢σ c,min + 0 􏼐σ c,max − σ c,min 􏼑􏼣. (8)
Eeq h
sealing rubber strip and force transferring cushion. Thus, the
equivalent elastic modulus of the joint section can be Then, considering (2) and (8)
obtained:
λ2 λ4 + λ1 λ6
σ c,max � ,
Ec Ep l 1 + l 2 􏼁 λ3 λ6 + λ2 λ5
Eeq � . (5) (9)
Ec l1 + Ep l2
λ λ −λ λ
σ c,min � 1 5 3 4,
Therefore, in (3), εc,max and εc,min can be expressed as λ3 λ6 + λ2 λ5
Advances in Civil Engineering 5

σc,max σc,max
′

M M′
h N h′ N′

nTb
h0
Bolt
σc,min σc,min
′

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Mechanical characteristic of the joint section under positive bending moment and small eccentricity pressing condition. (a)
Original joint section. (b) Equivalent joint section.

where N′ � N,
λ1 � nT0 + N,
M′ � M,
(12)
hb nK h
λ2 � + 􏼠1 − 0 􏼡, 􏼐σ c,max − σ c,min 􏼑 􏼐σ ′c,max − σ ′c,min 􏼑
2 Eeq h � ,
Eeq E′eq
hb nKh0
λ3 � + , where E′eq is the equivalent elastic modulus under positive
2 Eeq h
bending moment and small eccentric compression of
h (10) equivalent beam element.
λ4 � M − nT0 􏼠 − h0 􏼡, For the total cross section compression, the height and
2 width of the compressive area of an equivalent cross section
are the same as those of the original cross section, that is,
bh2 h nKh0 b′ � b and h′ � h. By solving (11) and (12) simultaneously,
λ5 � − 􏼠 − h0 􏼡 ,
12 2 Eeq h the following relationship is obtained:

bh2 h h nK 12MEeq
λ6 � + 􏼠 − h 0 􏼡􏼠 1 − 0 􏼡 . E′eq � , (13)
12 2 h Eeq bh2 􏼐σ c,max − σ c,min 􏼑

where E′eq is the elastic modulus of an equivalent beam, and

3.2.2. Stress Characteristics of the Equivalent Section. A it can be calculated from (9) and (13).
stress analysis chart of the equivalent section under positive
bending moment and small eccentric compression can be 3.3. Positive Bending Moment and Large
established based on the equivalent principle of the stress Eccentric Compression
state of cross section, as shown in Figure 3(b). Based on the
equilibrium relationship of force, there is 3.3.1. Stress Characteristics of the Original Section. A seg-
b′ h′ ment joint force diagram under positive bending moment and
N′ � 􏼐σ ′c,max + σ ′c,min 􏼑, large eccentric compression is shown in Figure 5(a). The axial
2
(11) force and bending moment can be expressed as
2 1
b′ h′ N � σ c,max bx − nTb ,
M′ � 􏼐σ ′c,max − σ ′c,min 􏼑, 2
12
(14)
where N′ and M′ refer to the axial force and bending moment 1 h x h
of the section of an equivalent beam element, respectively; M � σ c,max bx􏼠 − 􏼡 + nTb 􏼠 − h0 􏼡.
12 2 3 2
σ ′c,max and σ ′c,min are outside and inside compressive stresses,
respectively; and h′ and b′ , respectively, refer to the height and According to the assumption (4), the deformation at the
calculation width of the equivalent beam section. edge of concrete is δc,max � x · θ. Similarly, the deformation
Based on the equivalent principle of the stress state of at the bolt can be δb � (h − h0 − x) · θ. Here, θ is the opening
cross section, the internal force and rotation of the equiv- angle of the joint.
alent beam section are the same as those of the original Considering the initial pretightening force of bolt, axial
section: force of bolt should meet the following relationship:
6 Advances in Civil Engineering

δb Length of equivalent
Tb − T0 � K, (15) beam element for joint
L
l1 l1
where L is the effective calculation length of the bolt.
From the assumption (5), the deformation at the edge of
the segment can be obtained:

Rubber and cushion

σ c,max Concrete
δc,max � · x. (16)
Eeq N

Solving (14) and (16) simultaneously,

C1 x2 + C2 x + C3 � 0, (17) Bolt

where Figure 4: Analysis of the equivalent elastic modulus on the joint

section.
C1 � λ2 λ5 ,
shown in Figure 5(b), which can be obtained from static
C2 � λ3 λ5 − λ1 λ6 , equilibrium:
1 1
C3 � λ4 λ5 − λ1 λ7 , N′ � σ ′c,max b′ x′ − σ ′c,min b′ h′ − x′ 􏼁,
2 2

h 1 h ′ x′ 1 h ′ x′
λ1 � M − nT0 􏼠 − h0 􏼡, M′ � σ ′c,max b′ x′ 􏼠 − 􏼡 + σ ′c,min b′ h′ − x′ 􏼁􏼠 + 􏼡.
2 2 2 3 2 6 3
(20)
b
λ2 � − , Given that the stress property of the equivalent section is
6
the same as that of the original section:
bh nK h (18) N′ � N,
λ3 � − 􏼠 − h 􏼡,
4 Eeq L 2 0
M′ � M,
nK h (21)
λ4 � 􏼠 − h 􏼡 h − h0 􏼁, σ ′c,max σ ′c,min
Eeq L 2 0 � .
E′eq x′ E′eq h′ − x′ 􏼁
λ5 � N + nT0 ,
Two conditions should be added to solve the equation
b nK system consisting of (20) and (21) They are (1) composition
λ6 � + , of forces in the tensile zone of the equivalent section is the
2 Eeq L
same as the pulling force of bolt in the original section and
nK (2) the width of the equivalent section is obtained according
λ7 � − h − h0 􏼁. to the ratio of the area of bolt to the area of the internal
Eeq L
reinforcement of segmental lining αcs . Thus,
Equation (17) shows the function of the height of the 1
nTb � σ ′c,min b′ h′ − x′ 􏼁,
compressed area x. The height of the compressed area x 2 (22)
under corresponding force can be obtained by substituting
the relative parameter with the range of x, that is, x ∈ [0, h]. b′ � αcs b.
Then, the maximum compression at the edge of segment
σ c,max can be obtained By solving (20), (21), and (22) simultaneously, the
mechanical parameters of the equivalent section under
λ1 positive bending moment and large eccentric compression
σ c,max � ,
λ 2 x2 + λ 3 x + λ 4 can be obtained:
(19) M
λ5 x′ � ,
or σ c,max � . λ1 λ2 −(N/3)
λ6 x + λ7
h ′ � λ 1 x′ , (23)
3.3.2. Stress Characteristics of the Equivalent Section. A 2nEeq Tb x
stress analysis diagram of the equivalent section under E′eq � 2,
positive bending moment and large eccentric compression is αcs bσ c,max h′ − x′ 􏼁
Advances in Civil Engineering 7

where 3.4.2. Stress Characteristics of the Equivalent Section.

􏽳������� Stress characteristics of the equivalent section under nega-
nTb
λ1 � + 1, tive bending moment and small eccentric compression is
N + nTb shown in Figure 6(b). From static equilibrium and equiv-
(24)
alent principle, we obtain
N 2nTb
λ2 � + .
2 3 b ′ h′
N′ � 􏼐σ ′c,max + σ ′c,min 􏼑,
2
(29)
3.4. Negative Bending Moment and Small 2
b ′ h′
Eccentric Compression M′ � 􏼐σ ′c,max − σ ′c,min 􏼑,
12
3.4.1. Stress Characteristics of the Original Section. A stress
analysis diagram of the segment joint section under negative N′ � N,
bending moment and small eccentric compression is shown M′ � M,
in Figure 6(a). It can be obtained from the following static (30)
equilibrium: 􏼐σ c,max − σ c,min 􏼑 􏼐σ ′c,max − σ ′c,min 􏼑
� .
bh Eeq E′eq
N � 􏼐σ c,max + σ c,min 􏼑 − nTb ,
2
(25) In addition, considering the width and height of the
bh2 h equivalent section b′ � b and h′ � h, the following re-
M�− 􏼐σ − σ c,min 􏼑 + nTb 􏼠 − h0 􏼡. lationship can be obtained through (29) and (30):
12 c,max 2

According to deformation compatibility, the bolt 12MEeq

E′eq � . (31)
strain is bh2 􏼐σ c,max − σ c,min 􏼑
h − h0
εb � εc,min + 􏼐εc,max − εc,min 􏼑. (26)
h
3.5. Negative Bending Moment and Large
Solving (25) and (26) simultaneously, the following
Eccentric Compression
equation can be obtained:
λ1 λ5 − λ2 λ4 3.5.1. Stress Characteristics of the Original Section. Stress
σ c,min � , characteristics of the original section under negative bending
λ2 λ6 + λ3 λ5
moment and large eccentric compression can be further
(27)
λ λ + λ4 λ3 divided into two circumstances, as shown in Figures 7(a) and
σ c,max � 1 6 , 7(b), according to the size of eccentricity.
λ2 λ6 + λ3 λ5
where (1) The 1st Circumstance. As shown in Figure 7(a), based on
static equilibrium, we know that
λ1 � nT0 + N,
1
N � σ c,max bx − nTb ,
1 nK h 2
λ2 � bh + 􏼠1 − 0 􏼡, (32)
2 Eeq h
1 h x h
M � − σ c,max bx􏼠 − 􏼡 + nTb 􏼠 − h0 􏼡.
1 h nK 2 2 3 2
λ3 � bh + 0 ,
2 Eeq h From the plane section assumption, the deformation at
(28) bolt can be obtained as
h
λ4 � nT0 􏼠 − h0 􏼡 − M,
2 x − h0
εb � ε . (33)
x c,max
1 2 nK h h
λ5 � bh + 􏼠1 − 0 􏼡􏼠 − h0 􏼡, By solving (32) and (33) simultaneously, the following
12 Eeq h 2 can be obtained:

1 2 nKh0 h λ5
λ6 � bh − 􏼠 − h 􏼡. λ 3 x2 − λ 4 x − + λ2 � 0, (34)
12 Eeq h 2 0 x
8 Advances in Civil Engineering

σc,max

x
M
h N

nTb
h0
Bolt

(a)
σ′c,max

x′
M′
h′ N′

σ′c,min

(b)

Figure 5: Mechanical characteristic of the joint section under positive bending moment and large eccentricity pressing condition. (a)
Original joint section. (b) Equivalent joint section.

where (2) The 2nd Circumstance. The corresponding stress analysis

N + nT0 diagram is shown in Figure 7(b). Its static equilibrium
λ1 � , conditions meet (32) and the deformation compatibility,
nT0 (h/2) − h0 − M􏼁
that is,
nK h δc,max � x · θ,
λ2 � 􏼢λ 􏼠 − h 􏼡 − 1􏼣, (37)
Eeq 1 2 0 δb � h0 − x􏼁 · θ.

bλ1 (35) Solving (32) and (37) simultaneously, we obtain

λ3 � ,
6 λ3 x2 − λ4 x + λ5 � 0, (38)
b bhλ1 where
λ4 � + ,
2 4 N + nT0
λ1 � ,
λ5 � λ2 h0 . M − nT0 (h/2) − h0 􏼁

Therefore, considering the range of x, that is, x ∈ [0, h], nK h

from (34), the height x, σ c,max , and Tb of the compressed area λ2 � 􏼢λ 􏼠 − h 􏼡 + 1􏼣,
Eeq 1 2 0
of the internal concrete of a segment under negative bending
moment and large eccentric compression can be obtained: (39)
λ3 � bλ1 ,
N + nT0
σ c,max � ,
(1/2)bx + 􏼐nK/Eeq 􏼑 1 − h0 /x􏼁􏼁 b bhλ1
λ4 � λ2 + + ,
(36) 2 4
σ c,max K h
Tb � T0 − 􏼠1 − 0 􏼡.
Eeq x λ5 � λ2 h0 .
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

σc,min σc,min
′

M M′
h N h′ N′

nTb
h0
Bolt
σc,max σc,max
′

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Mechanical characteristic of the joint section under positive bending moment and small eccentricity pressing condition. (a)
Original joint section. (b) Equivalent joint section.

Therefore, considering the range of x, that is, x ∈ [0, h0 ], 4. Calculation Flow of HEB Model for Shield
the height x, σ c,max , and Tb of the compressed area of the Tunnel Segment
internal concrete of a segment under negative bending
moment and large eccentric compression can be obtained The derivation in Section 3 shows that the key idea of the
using (38). HEB model is that the stress characteristics of a segment
joint is analyzed through equating a joint section to a con-
tinuous beam element. That is, a noncontinuous segment
3.5.2. Stress Characteristics of the Equivalent Section. A structure is changed into a continuous heterogeneous beam
diagram of the stress characteristics of the equivalent section structure. Also, section parameters of the equivalent beam at
under negative bending moment and large eccentric com- the joint should be obtained through equivalent conversion.
pression is shown in Figure 7(c). Based on static equilibrium The internal force of a joint section and initial physical and
and equivalent principle, we obtain mechanical parameters should be obtained before any
N′ 6M′ structural calculation. In this study, the UR model is used to
σ c,min � + , estimate the internal force, and iterative calculation is ap-
b′ h′ b′ h′ 2
plied to achieve accurate solution, with calculation flow
(40) being shown in Figure 8.
N′ 6M′
σ c,max � − ,
b′ h′ b′ h′ 2
5. Model Validation and Applications
N′ � N, 5.1. Case 1. To verify the reliability of the proposed model,
M′ � M, a comparative analysis is conducted by comparing model
(41) simulation with the result from the literature [21]. In this
σ c,max 􏼐σ ′c,max + σ ′c,min 􏼑
� . case, a certain interval of the shield tunnel, that is, number 3
Eeq x E′eq h′ Guangzhou subway in China, is used as an example. The
segment structure of this interval of shield is designed as
Similarly, solving (40) and (41) simultaneously, the
a “3 + 2 + 1” block mode. The external diameter of the segment
following is obtained:
is 6.0 m, and its thickness is 0.3 m. The segment rings are
2 2NEeq x connected through 2 high-tensile bolts (Class 8.8 M24) with
E′eq h′ � . (42)
αcs bσ c,max initial pretightening force of 200 kN and C50 concrete. The
stratum is a weathered stratum in the red beds of Cretaceous
The height of the equivalent section under positive System; the depth of tunnel is 22.14 m, and the water level is
bending moment and large eccentric conditions can be used 18.94 m. The main parameters are shown in Figure 9(a).
to calculate the height h′ of the equivalent section under
negative bending moment and large eccentric compression,
as shown in (23). Thus, the elastic modulus of the equivalent 5.1.1. Calculation Process
beam under negative bending moment and large eccentric (1) First, with basic model parameters, applying the UR
conditions can be obtained: model (Figure 9(b)) to obtain the internal force of
2NEeq x each joint section (Table 1). The load calculation
E′eq � 2. (43) takes both geological conditions and ground sur-
αcs bσ c,max h′ charge p0 � 20 kPa into consideration.
10 Advances in Civil Engineering

M M
h N h N
x
nTb nTb
h0 Bolt h0 Bolt x
σc,max σc,max

(a) (b)
σc,min
′

M′
h′ N′
x′

σc,max
′

(c)

Figure 7: Mechanical characteristic of the joint section under hogging bending moment and large eccentricity pressing condition. (a)
Original joint section with the first circumstance. (b) Original joint section with the second circumstance. (c) Equivalent joint section.

(2) The mechanical equivalent parameter solution of that the HEB model may produce results closer to the
a joint section deduced according to Section 3 is used true ones.
to solve the equivalent mechanical parameters of (2) The bending moment calculated using various
each section, as shown in Table 1. methods are considerably different, whereas the
(3) The equivalent mechanical parameters obtained in change in axial force is relatively small. This means
Step 2 is used to update those in Step 1. Then, re- all models listed in Table 3 can meet the accuracy
peating Steps 1–3 to obtain accurate results of the requirements of engineering applications in terms of
equivalent mechanical parameters. Accordingly, the axial force.
internal force of the segment produced by the HEB (3) Tables 1 and 3 show that the presence of a joint
model is obtained finally. section lowers the stiffness of the joint section, thus
The final result of each joint section calculated is shown resulting in a lower bearing bending moment in
in Table 2. A very small difference in the calculation result of a joint compared with that of the UR model. By
axial force is found between two models. However, the contrast, this value in the segment section is higher
difference in bending moment is relatively large, with the than that of the UR model, which is consistent with
maximum relative difference being about 8%. previous theoretical studies and engineering practice
[8]. Therefore, the current model can better reflect
the effect of joints on the stiffness of segment
structure, and the model result is reliable.
5.1.2. Comparative Analysis. The internal force on the vault
section is used for comparative analysis, with results from
the literature [21] and model simulation by this study being
5.2. Case 2. Lei et al. [22] introduced the construction of
shown in Table 3. According to the principle of statistics, all
a shield tunnel in Guangzhou metro line 3, China. The
kinds of methods for calculation are random events, and the
diameter of this tunnel is 5.4 m, constructed by earth
mean value is closer to the true one. Thus, the mean values of
pressure balance TBM, using precast reinforced concrete
simulation results and relative errors given by various
segments as inner lining (the diameter is 6 m). The main
methods are applied for comparative analysis.
geological conditions of tunnel section are filled soil, mucky
The following results can be seen:
soil, fine sand layer, diluvium and alluvium layer, and in-
(1) For both bending moment and axial force, gaps tense weathering mud rock. The stratum condition and
between the HEB model results and the mean values parameters for calculation are listed in Table 4 and Figure 10,
are smaller than those of other methods, indicating respectively.
Advances in Civil Engineering 11

Structure parameter:
(i) concrete's strength rank, C
(ii) segment division
(iii) segment thickness, h
(iv) segment width, b
(v) parameters of bolt L, Es, and As
(vi) reinforcement parameters of segment
(vii) segment diameter, D Establishing the heterogeneous
Geologic parameter: equivalent beam model and calculating
(i) mechanical parameters c, φ, and E
(ii) thickness of each stratum, H Extracting the inner force of the
(iii) burial depth, Hq equivalent beam elements and Updating the equivalent
calculating the equivalent parameters parameters on cross
Preparing the basic computing profile of joints
data of structure
Comparing the input and
Establishing the uniform rigidity ring output equivalent parameters and checking
whether the difference valve satisfies the No
model of shield tunnel and calculating
accuracy requirement
or not
Extracting the inner force on joints
cross profile
Yes
Calculating the equivalent parameters
on cross profile of joints according to
End and output results
the properties of force of the original
joints

Figure 8: Calculation flow of the HEB model.

p0 = 20 kPa
Ground surface p1

Underground water table

H = 22.14 m

q1
Hw = 18.94 m

B
Moderate weathered
rock of cretaceous

γ = 25.0 kN/m3 Joint

k = 500MPa/m
c = 8.0 MPa C
φ = 33°
m

X
2.7
r=

Z
Tunnel
D

q2

(a) (b)

Figure 9: Calculation model. (a) Geological condition. (b) Structural calculation model.

The relative literature and codes used in calculating the calculation model, as shown in Figure 9(b). For comparative
model parameters are shown in Table 5. The calculated analysis, the internal forces of the structure are calculated by
parameters are then applied to establish a load-structure the UR model, MUR model (stiffness reduction coefficient is
12 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 1: Equivalent parameters on joints section.

Inner force evaluated by
Equivalent parameters
Joints UR model Force-bearing types
M (kN·m) N (kN) h′ (m) b′ (m) Eeq (GPa)
Positive bending moment and small eccentricity
B 67.99 1354.51 0.3 1.5 7.36
pressing
Hogging bending moment and small eccentricity
C −76.74 1566.17 0.3 1.5 13.05
pressing
Positive bending moment and small eccentricity
D 31.94 2070.37 0.3 1.5 9.71
pressing

Table 2: Calculation results of inner force on joints section.

Relative difference
UR model HEB model
Joints value (%)
M (kN·m) N (kN) M (kN·m) N (kN) M N
B 67.99 1354.51 62.99 1355.62 7.94 0.08
C −76.74 1566.17 −79.26 1566.39 3.28 0.01
D 31.94 2070.37 32.50 2045.25 1.75 1.23

Table 3: Results comparison of inner force on crown section.

Relative difference
Mean value
Calculation models M (kN·m) N (kN) value (%)
M (kN·m) N (kN) M N
UR model 76.94 1344.35 16.43 0.26
MUR model 77.10 1344.22 16.68 0.26
66.08 1347.79
Multihinge ring mode 38.40 1357.10 41.89 0.69
HEB model 71.89 1345.48 8.79 0.17
Note: the reduction coefficient in modified uniform rigidity model was selected as η � 0.7.

Table 4: Calculation parameters of surrounding rock. 0.7), and the proposed HEB model. For the HEB model, the
Layer name c (kN·m )−3
φ (° ) c (kPa) calculation flow chart in Figure 8 is used for iterative cal-
Filled soil 17.3 28 12 culation. The initial values are the same as those for a seg-
Mucky soil, fine sand layer 18.5 18 6 ment section. The iterative and convergence curves of the
Diluvium and alluvium layer 19.5 20 1 equivalent elastic modulus of all joints are shown as
Intense weathering mud rock 21.6 24 200 Figure 11. Results show that the proposed HEB model has
good convergence in terms of the internal force calculation
for shield segment structure. In addition, the proposed model
can produce higher accuracy after 2-3 steps of iteration.

0m
Filled soil 5.3. Analysis on Results. Figures 12 and 13 show the iteration
1.4 m
process of the HEB model and the internal force distribution
curve fluctuates associated with the update in mechanical
Mucky soil, fine sand layer parameters of a joint. With the increase of the iteration step,
the simulation results approach a stable level gradually.
Thus, this method has good convergence. The distribution
9m laws of the final calculation results by three models are
similar, coinciding with the theoretical studies and practical
Diluvium and
alluvium
experience [8]. This indicates that the proposed HEB model
3m

is reliable.
r=

15 m The internal forces of joints are shown in Table 6 and

Figure 14. Note that the values of bending moment produced
by the HEB model fall in between those calculated by the
Intense weathering mud rock
other two methods. In addition, the existing research shows
Figure 10: Tunnel depth and strata distribution for calculating. that the UR model ignores the effect of joint and artificially
Advances in Civil Engineering 13

Table 5: Summary of calculation parameters.

Parameters Value Illustrate
Vertical load, p1 (kPa) 223.32 Whole earth-pillar load
Horizontal load on the top of the tunnel, q1 (kPa) 111.66
Lateral pressure coefficient is 0.5
Horizontal load on the bottom of the tunnel, q2 (kPa) 170.16
Rock resistant coefficient, k (MPa·m−1) 100 [23]
Segment width, b (m) 1.5
Segment thickness, h (m) 0.3
Thickness of the reinforcement protective layer of
5.0 /
segment, hc (cm)
5
Elastic modulus of bolt, Es (MPa) 2.06 × 10
Effective length of bolt, L (cm) 46.0
Cross-sectional area of bolt, Ag (mm2) 1017.88 Grade 8.8 M36
Thickness of transferring cushion, l2 (mm) 5.0 /
Total cross-sectional area of steel bar inner side of the
3770.4 12Φ20
segment, As (mm2)
Number of circular bolt on each joint, n 2 /
Elastic modulus of segment concrete, Ec (MPa) 34.5 × 103 C50
Poisson’s ratio of segment concrete, μ 0.17 C50
Elastic modulus of transferring cushion, Ep (MPa) 0.4 × 103 /
Distance from the bolt centroid to the segment inner
12.0 /
side, h0 (cm)
Effective length of equivalent beam element, l (m) 0.1 /
Tensile stiffness of bolt, K (N) 2.1 × 105 /
The ratio between the cross-sectional area of bolt and
the cross section of steel bar inner side the segment, 0.54 /
αcs
Equivalent elastic modulus of equivalent beam
element under axial compressive condition, Eeq 6.82 × 103 /
(MPa)
Initial pretightening force of bolt, T0 (kN) 200 Grade 8.8 M36

increases the stiffness of structure; thus, the calculation 40

result of bending moment is slightly high. By contrast, the
35
MUR model may result in lower values as expected [8].
Therefore, the HEB model can better reflect the effect of 30
joint on the stiffness of lining structure than the other two
25
models.
Eeq (GPa)

Further analysis shows that the presence of joints has 20

the greatest impact on the distribution of bending mo-
15
ment. The maximum difference can be as high as 24%. Its
impact on axial force is relatively small, with 5% differ- 10
ence, which is consistent with the practical situation
[12, 14, 15]. 5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Conclusions Iteration (time)

Starting from-force transferring properties of segment joint, B joint

this paper converts a noncontinuous segment structure into C joint
a continuous heterogeneous structure through equivalent D joint
conversion of mechanical parameters of a joint section. Figure 11: Iteration process of the equivalent elastic modulus on
The solution of equivalent mechanical parameters of joint joint elements.
section is deduced and obtained according to material
mechanics, thus avoiding the uncertainty and complexity
of segment calculation induced by joint. An iterative
calculation flow of the proposed HEB model is also requirement of engineering application. However, for
provided. bending moment, simulation results are considerably
Model validation and applications show that the axial different; particularly in the joint section, where the
forces of a segment structure obtained by all models are maximum deviation of bending moment obtained by the
slightly different, and all models can meet the accuracy proposed HEB model can be up to 20% and more.
14 Advances in Civil Engineering

75 90 90 75
60 60 1000
80
45 45 750
40
0 30 30 500

–40 250
15 15

M (kN·m)
–80 0

N (kN)
0 0
–80 0
–40 –15 –15 250
0 –30 –30 500
40
–45 –45 750
80
–60 –60 1000
–75 –90 –90 –75

The 2nd interation The 2nd interation

The 5th interation The 5th interation
(a) (b)

Figure 12: Iteration results of the HEB model. (a) Bending moment. (b) Axial force.

15

75 90 75
(a) (b) 1000
80 60 60
45 45 750
40
A 500
0 30 30
B
–40 250
15 15
M (kN·m)

–80 0
N (kN)

0 0
–80 0
–40 –15 –15 250
0 –30 –30 500
40
–45 –45 750
80
–60 –60 1000
–75 –90 –75
HEB model
UR model
MUR model
Figure 13: Calculation results by three models. (a) Bending moment. (b) Axial force.

Therefore, the selection of calculation model is very im- convergence. Thus, the proposed model may provide
portant in design analysis. Comparative analysis of dif- useful suggestions for designers, engineers, and scholars
ferent segment structure calculation models shows that who focus on the designing of shield tunnel, assessment
the proposed heterogeneous equivalent model can better of segment joints’ stability and durability, maintenance of
reflect the effects of joint on the stiffness of a segment. shield tunnel subway, and investment estimation of
The proposed model provides reliable results with better subway operation.
Advances in Civil Engineering 15

Table 6: Final calculation results of inner force on joint sections calculated by the 3 models.
Inner force
Models Joints
M (kN·m) N (kN)
B 80.03 477.34
UR model C 67.12 692.69
D 19.78 831.50
B 72.96 485.87
MUR model C 56.95 695.20
D 15.95 838.90
B 71.79 484.00
HEB model C 61.32 694.42
D 19.11 835.54

1000
100

80 800

60 600
M (kN·m)

N (kN)

40 400

20 200

0 0
B C D B C D
Joint Joint
UR model UR model
MUR model MUR model
HEB model HEB model
(a) (b)

Figure 14: Comparison of inner force on joint sections. (a) Bending moment. (b) Axial force.

Nomenclature Tb , T0 : Pulling force and initial pretightening force of

UR model: Uniform rigidity ring model single bolt
h0 : Distance from the centroid of bolt to the inside
MUR Modified uniform rigidity ring model
edge of segment
model:
εb : Strain at bolt in joint section
HEB Heterogeneous equivalent beam model
εc,max , Inside and outside edge strains of concrete of
model:
εc,min : joint section
Ec , μ: Elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of segment
Eeq : Equivalent compressive elastic modulus of joint
concrete
beam element
σ: Stress of the edge of concrete
A, l: Cross-sectional area and effective length of
x: Effective height of compressed area of concrete equivalent beam element
of a joint section l1 : Length of concrete in the range of joint beam
N, M: Axial force and bending moment of a section of element
segment joint l2 , E p : Thickness and elastic modulus of sealing rubber
σ c,max , Compressive stress outside and inside of joint strip and transferring cushion
σ c,min : section K, Es , As : Tensile stiffness, elastic modulus, and
h, b: Thickness and width of segment cross-sectional area of bolt
n: Number of bolts in the calculation width of N ′ , M′ : Axial force and bending moment of the section
segment of an equivalent beam element
16 Advances in Civil Engineering

σ ′c, max , Outside and inside compressive stresses of [6] K. M. Lee, X. Y. Hou, X. W. Ge, and Y. Tang, “An analytical
σ ′c, min : a section of an equivalent beam solution for a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining,” In-
h′ , b′ : Height and calculation width of equivalent ternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 365–390, 2001.
beam section
[7] Y. Koyama, “Study on the improvement of design method of
E′eq : Equivalent elastic modulus of equivalent beam segments for shield-driven tunnels,” RTRI Report: Special No.
element 33, RTRI, Tokyo, Japan, 2000.
θ: Open angle of the joint [8] F. Ye, C. F. Gou, H. D. Sun, Y. P. Liu, Y. X. Xia, and Z. Zhou,
αcs : Ratio of the area of bolt to the area of the inside “Model test study on effective ratio of segment transverse
reinforcement of segment bending,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
p0 , p1 : Ground overload and ground overload vol. 41, pp. 193–205, 2014.
q1 , q 2 : Horizontal load on the top and bottom of [9] R. B. Peck, A. J. Hendron, and B. Mohraz, “State of the art of
tunnel soft ground tunnelling,” in Proceedings of 1st Rapid Exca-
L, Ag : Effective length and cross-sectional area of bolt vation and Tunnel Conference, vol. 1, pp. 259–286, Chicago,
η: Reduction coefficient in the MUR model IL, USA, 1972.
[10] A. M. Muir Wood, “The circular tunnel in elastic ground,”
c, φ, c, k: Volume-weight, internal friction angle,
Geotechnique, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 115–127, 1975.
cohesion, and resistant coefficient of rock mass [11] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), The Design and
δ0 : Compressive deformation of compressed Construction of Underground Structures, Tokyo, Japan, 1977.
concrete at segment joint. [12] Y. Koyama, “Present status and technology of shield tun-
nelling method in Japan,” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Data Availability Technology, vol. 18, no. 2-3, pp. 145–159, 2003.
[13] M. F. Lei, “Research on calculation methods of life-cycle
The data used to support the findings of this study are structure performance of shield tunnel in aggressive envi-
available from the corresponding author upon request. ronment,” Central South University, Changsha, China, 2013,
in Chinese.
[14] H. H. Zhu and L. B. Tao, “Study on two beam-spring models
Conflicts of Interest for the numerical analysis of segments in shield tunnel,” Rock
and Soil Mechanics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 26–32, 1998, in Chinese.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. [15] X. Y. Hu, Z. X. Zhang, and L. Teng, “An analytical method for
internal forces in DOT shield-driven tunnel,” Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 675–688,
Acknowledgments 2009.
[16] W. Zhu, Code for Tunnel (Shield Driven Tunnel) and its
Projects funded by the National Natural Science Foundation
Explanation, China Building Industry Press, Beijing, China,
of China (nos. 51508575 and 51808416), the National Basic 2011, in Chinese.
Research Program of China (no. 2011CB013802), the China [17] R. Guo, C. He, Z. X. Su, and Z. Z. Peng, “Study of shearing
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (nos. 2014M560652 and mechanical properties of segment joints of shield tunnels,”
2016T90764), the Innovative Talents of Science and Tech- Modern Tunnelling Technology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 72–77, 2011,
nology Plan of Hunan Province (no. 2015RS4006), and the in Chinese.
Provincial Commonweal Science Foundation of Zhejiang [18] Z. H. Huang, “Study on loading model of joints at longitudinal
(PCSFZ, no. 2017C33220) are gratefully acknowledged. seam of lining segments in shield tunnel,” Underground Space,
vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 296–301, 2003, in Chinese.
[19] I. Teodor, “Design considerations and testing in shield-driven
References tunnels,” in Proceedings of Ita International Congress Towards
New Worlds in Tunnelling, pp. 321–326, Balkema, Rotterdam,
[1] X. J. Li, Z. G. Yan, Z. Wang, and H. H. Zhu, “Experimental Netherlands, 1992.
and analytical study on longitudinal joint opening of concrete [20] I. Teodor, “Prefabricated lining, conceptional analysis and
segmental lining,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech- comparative studies for optional solution,” in Proceedings of
nology, vol. 46, pp. 52–63, 2015. Ita International Congress Tunnelling & Ground Conditions,
[2] M. F. Lei, L. M. Peng, and C. H. Shi, “An experimental study pp. 136A-137A, Cairo, Egipt, 1994.
on durability of shield segments under load and chloride [21] J. M. Huang, “The choice of calculation model on shield
environment coupling effect,” Tunnelling and Underground tunnel segment,” Railway Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 29–31, 2004,
Space Technology, vol. 42, pp. 15–24, 2014. in Chinese.
[3] M. C. Zhang, “Analysis of lining segments for circular shield [22] M. F. Lei, L. M. Peng, C. H. Shi, and D. Zhao, “Calculation and
tunnels,” Modern Tunnelling Technology, vol. 46, no. 5, analysis of limit support force of shield tunnel excavation face
pp. 23–27, 2009, in Chinese. under facing-slope conditions,” Chinese Journal of Geo-
[4] C. Klappers, F. Grubl, and B. Ostermeier, “Structural analyses technical Engineering, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 488–493, 2010, in
of segmental lining-coupled beam and spring analyses versus Chinese.
3D-FEM calculations with shell elements,” Tunnelling and [23] JTG D70-2004, Code for Design of Rode Tunnel, Specification,
Underground Space Technology, vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 254-255, China Communications Press, Beijing, China, 2004, in
2006. Chinese.
[5] W G N, & Association I T, “Guidelines for the design of shield
tunnel lining,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 303–331, 2000.