Analysis on the stiffness iteration of segmental joints in segmental linings: Method and sensitivity analysis

Abstract In current structural analyses on segmental linings, the bending stiffness of segmental joints is usually treated as a constant, which results in a deviation in the calculated internal forces and deformation. In view of this, a finite element model of segmental linings is established using one ring and two half rings. An iterative algorithm is designed with a 3D curved surface of bending stiffness for the segmental joint, obtained from a series of full-scale tests under different axial force and bending moment cases. The rational convergence criteria for the iterative algorithm are recommended by evaluating the convergence efficiency of the iterative algorithm. Moreover, the influence of load magnitude and initial value of bending stiffness, as well as the changing laws of structural internal forces and deformation with the assembly angles, are presented and analyzed. The results show that with the same load, the convergence of the iterative algorithm in staggered-jointed assembly structures (STGS) is better than that of straight-jointed assembly structures (STRS), owing to its greater overall stiffness. The initial input value of bending stiffness has no effect on the convergence of the proposed iterative algorithm, and generally the convergence performance in STGS is better than that in STRS. In STRS, the bending moment is most sensitive to the changes of assembly angles, while in STGS the assembly angles have great influence on both the bending moment and structural displacement. Without the stiffness iteration, the maximum differences for maximum axial force, bending moment, and displacement under different assembly angle in STRS are 11.7%, 31.9% and 22.3%, respectively, and that differences in STGS are 10.4%, 59.3% and 35.1%, respectively. With the stiffness iterative method, the increase amplitude of the maximum axial force, the maximum bending moment, and the maximum displacement in STRS and STGS are 50.0%, 317.4%, 77.1% and 41.9%, 459.3%, 156.5%, respectively, indicating that changing the assembly angles is a rational way to control the internal structural forces and deformations.

[1]  Climent Molins,et al.  Three dimensional structural response of segmental tunnel linings , 2012 .

[2]  Chuan He,et al.  Failure tests and bearing performance of prototype segmental linings of shield tunnel under high water pressure , 2019, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology.

[3]  Xia Caich METHOD FOR DETERMINING BENDING STIFFNESS OF SHIELD TUNNEL SEGMENT RINGS LONGITUDINAL JOINT BASED ON FIX-POINT ITERATION , 2014 .

[4]  Weiqi Wang,et al.  Full-scale tests on bending behavior of segmental joints for large underwater shield tunnels , 2018 .

[5]  S. Vahdani,et al.  Numerical-aided design of fiber reinforced concrete tunnel segment joints subjected to seismic loads , 2018 .

[6]  Supot Teachavorasinskun,et al.  Influence of segmental joints on tunnel lining , 2010 .

[7]  Climent Molins,et al.  Experimental and analytical study of the structural response of segmental tunnel linings based on an in situ loading test. Part 2: Numerical simulation , 2011 .

[8]  Chuan He,et al.  Analytical method regarding compression-bending capacity of segmental joints: Theoretical model and verification , 2019, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology.

[9]  Irini Djeran-Maigre,et al.  2D numerical investigation of segmental tunnel lining behavior , 2013 .

[10]  Hehua Zhu,et al.  Full-scale testing and modeling of the mechanical behavior of shield TBM tunnel joints , 2013 .

[11]  Fei Wang,et al.  Behaviour of cast-iron tunnel segmental joint from the 3D FE analyses and development of a new bolt-spring model , 2014 .

[12]  Hehua Zhu,et al.  A progressive model to simulate the full mechanical behavior of concrete segmental lining longitudinal joints , 2015 .

[13]  Oriol Arnau,et al.  Theoretical and numerical analysis of the three-dimensional response of segmental tunnel linings subjected to localized loads , 2015 .

[14]  K. Lee,et al.  The equivalence of a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining to a continuous ring structure , 2001 .

[15]  Kenichi Soga,et al.  Comparison of the structural behavior of reinforced concrete and steel fiber reinforced concrete tunnel segmental joints , 2017 .

[16]  Y. Tang,et al.  An analytical solution for a jointed shield‐driven tunnel lining , 2001 .

[17]  Hany El Naggar,et al.  An analytical solution for jointed tunnel linings in elastic soil or rock , 2008 .

[18]  Thomas Kasper,et al.  A modelling approach for joint rotations of segmental concrete tunnel linings , 2017 .