Wirth-en

Statik / statics
1 Prefax
The attached document contains the static calculation for the shield structure of the WIRTH
Tunnel Boring Machine TB 485 H-GS/EPB, Project Sewer Tunnel Visnjia.
The soil pressures the shield will face during tunnelling are the fundamental base for above
calculation and they are given with the preliminary geological report in the project tender
document - reference is made to the Bidding Documentation, Part 3 Technical Documentation.
Following the terms and conditions of the tender - reference is made to Part 4 EPB Tunnel
Boring Machine, clause 4 Geological Conditions - we verified the soil pressures introduced in
the relevant tender document on a very conservative base and applied methods state of the art
and we considered the maximum water pressure defined in the tender specification for the
Tunnel Boring Machine and at 4 bars.
For the sake of the machines smooth operation and following the fundamental understanding
of the project tender, soil conditions on site shall be monitored regularly during tunnelling and
measures for soil treatment shall be taken to support and provide the tender and calculations
assumptions as per above.
I0005349 Stand 06.08.2008 © WIRTH GmbH – all rights reserved – proprietary and confidential Seite / Page 1
Static Analysis and Structural Check of the Shield Construction
TB 485 H-GS/EPB (Project BEOLAND)
WIRTH MASCHINEN- UND BOHRGERÄTE-FABRIK GmbH, Erkelenz
Authors: Dipl.-Ing. B. Stielow

Dipl.-Ing. R. Hayford
Dipl.-Ing. Th. Jänecke
Dr.-Ing. St. Heimer
ZERNA INGENIEURE
Project Number: 11-00-4946
Bochum, 2008-06-10 …………………………..………………………..
page 1 of 25
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables........................................................................................................................... 3
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
2 Finite Elemente Modelling............................................................................................. 5

2.1 Goals of structural design calculation .................................................................................... 5
2.2 Geometry and discretization .................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Safety factors............................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Material properties .................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Boundary conditions and load assumptions ........................................................................ 10
2.5.1 Loads.......................................................................................................................... 11
2.5.2 Elastic foundation ..................................................................................................... 12
2.5.3 Further assumptions................................................................................................. 12
3 Results and Interpretation........................................................................................... 16

3.1 General remarks concerning the investigations................................................................... 16
3.2 Design criteria.......................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Stress verification and plastic strains under design loads ................................................. 18
3.4 Deformations under service loads......................................................................................... 19
3.5 Special load cases................................................................................................................... 20
3.6 Screw forces at the erector support frame............................................................................ 21
3.7 Overall assessment................................................................................................................. 22
4 Summary....................................................................................................................... 24
5 Literature....................................................................................................................... 25
page 2 of 25
List of Figures
Figure 1: Articulation modelling between front shield and middle shield .......................................................... 8
Figure 2: Applied constitutive laws for different plate thicknesses.................................................................. 10
Figure 3: Estimation of maximum base pressure ........................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: Distribution of articulation forces, load case ”Shield driving to the right” ......................................... 20
List of Tables
Table 1: Material properties as functions of plate thickness............................................................................. 9
Table 2: Maximum screw forces .................................................................................................................... 22
Number of pages in the document: 25 (without any attachments and annex “Loads”)
page 3 of 25
Static analysis and structural check of the shield construction
TB 485 H-GS/EPB (Project „BEOLAND“)
1 Introduction
WIRTH MASCHINEN- UND BOHRGERÄTE-FABRIK GmbH, Erkelenz, commissioned a static analysis and a
structural check (finite element proof) for the shield construction TB 485 H-GS/EPB, Project „Beoland“ (client
project no. P.001423) to ZERNA INGENIEURE GmbH, Bochum.
As a basis,
- Pro/E-construction design data,
- construction drawings,
- loading assumptions for the “internal forces” and
- client’s information on the geological conditions
were handed over to ZERNA INGENIEURE. As proof targets usual stress verifications and a check at
serviceability limit state according to the actual codes of practice were determined.
The shield construction consists of a front shield, a middle shield and a tail shield. The first two are hinged
connected to enable controlling of the shield driving. TB 485 H-GS/EPB has a diameter of about 4.80 m and
a length of about 9.30 m . The tunnel line extends over 5.7 km and is characterized by permanently varying
geological conditions. This aspect causes a relatively expansive investigation of the loads resulting from soil
and water pressure. Therefore, the corresponding calculations are summarized in a separate appendix.
The static analysis is build up and explained with the help of a 3D-model in the current report. As a software
system, the commercial finite element code ANSYS 11.0 is used. Technical principles and rules are taken
from the actual codes of practice, design tables and reference books. A listing of the main sources can be
found in chapter 5, literature. Permanent contact between the client and the contractor is guaranteed,
particularly regarding various construction details and loading assumptions.
page 4 of 25
2 Finite Elemente Modelling
The current chapter describes the realization of the tasks in a finite element model. The number of
appendices (plots) will be minimized and the main focus lies on the explanatory text. Thus, the readers are
able to take the approach underlying consumptions and considerations more quickly, what should result in a
better understanding.
The sections prepare and explain the data needed for each single static proof. These are the geometric
dimensions of the tunneling machine, the boundary conditions – loads and structural bearings – and the
material properties. Geometric modelling only reflects statically relevant components and members, which
stiffen the shield construction or can be involved in carring any loads. The choice of element types, namely
internal shape functions, and calculation approaches aims on an accurate and realistic modelling.
Discretization is explained.
Concerning the acting loads (action) and material properties (resistance) standardization in civil engineering
is taken into account as well as the underlying philosophy of safety, both with the help of partial safety
factors.
Each numerical investigation additionally requires theoretical assumptions and simplifications for
mathematical, mechanical or economical reasons. Without any exception, such modelling assumptions are
presented and explained in a transparent way to raise up confidence in the results of the static analyses.
ZERNA INGENIEURE uses the commercial finite element code ANSYS 11.0 in all investigations presented
here. The program is validated, verified and sufficies scientific standards. Insight into the manuals and input
files can be given at any time.
2.1 Goals of structural design calculation

The analysis principally distinguishes between the static investigation with design loads, which take the afore
mentioned partial safety factors into account, and the proof of deformation under service loads (excluding
partial safety factors). The static proof compares calculated stresses, plastic strains and forces with
corresponding permitted values derived in section 2.4 and allows an engineering assessment due to the
reserve of the bearing capacity. When doing the deformation proof service loads are used to rate the
deflections with respect to a possible restriction of serviceability. This investigation mainly aims on the radial
deformation at the tail shield.
Some principles serve for a better overview and clarity in the presentations of modelling details and results,
which should lead to an easier understanding:
- Only few pictures and plots, well-chosen from the evaluations that have been really carried out.
- Limitation on a few covering criteria.
- Conveying an understanding regarding the static system, its relevant members, bearing behavior,
bearing capacity and safety margin.
Overall, all analyses are carried out in close consultation with the client.
page 5 of 25
2.2 Geometry and discretization
As mentioned above, discretization of the tunneling machine is limited to the statically relevant components.
It is not possible to use symmetry conditions since of unsymmetrical loads due to jacking forces when
simulating a sideward driving. Thus, three-dimensionel modelling of the whole shield construction is required.
The finite element model essentially includes
- the shield skin,
- the submerged wall with the pressure bulk head and the (cutter head) main bearing,
- the erector support frame,
- stiffening circumferential plates and flanges, classified as relevant due to the global static behavior,
- radial stiffeners, ring girders and other members, which can have some stiffening effects or can carry
any loads.
When modelling, geometric relationships are firstly represented by areas and other so called “primitives” and
then meshed by hand, taking into account compatibility conditions according to the number of elements at
certain lines and boundaries. Meshing by hand needs more effort, but it is compensated by some
advantageous aspects. In essence, it is noted:
- The generated mesh is charakterized by a high degree of regularity and usually only sligtly distorted
elements.
- With a few exceptions the use of (bad) triangular elements is avoided.
- Troubleshooting during the first numerical calculations becomes easier.
- The application of loads, boundary conditions and constraints is simplified.
- The modeler knows “his“ discretization and “his“ mesh, what allows relatively fast changes.
- Unsymmetric results, which are exclusively caused by the discretization, are mostly avoided.1
Discretization of all plates is carried out with eight node shell elements. They have got quadratic shape
functions to interpolate the displacements and consequently a linear approach in the stress components. The
approach on the shell thickness is exact, i. e. stresses are also linear with respect to shell thickness.
All plates are divided into groups with different thicknesses, which are distinguished by colors in attachments
2.2.1 to 2.2.5. In particular:
violet: 20 mm dark blue: 25 mm
red: 30 mm dark green: 35 mm
blue: 40 mm orange: 50 mm
green: 60 mm yellow: 70 mm
turquoise: 90 mm
Attachment 2.2.1 looks to the model from the outside and particularly illustrates the distribution of the sheet
strengths at the shield skin and the submerged wall or the main bearing respectively. A look into the model
show attachments 2.2.2 slanted front and 2.2.3 diagonally backward. They illustrate the statically relevant
members of the tunneling machine. Details in the vicinity of the erector support frame can be found in
1 The point is not relevant for the actual dimensioning, but it considerably helps in troubleshooting and interpreting the results.
page 6 of 25
attachment 2.2.4. Finally, attachment 2.2.5 allows a view into the construction and shows the distribution of
several static components.
Screw connections at the erector support frame:
Connection of the erector support frame to the shield skin is done at four locations with the help of two plates
screwed together (see attachment 2.2.4). At the two upper fixing locations the plates have got a thickness of
50 mm (orange) or 40 mm (blue) respectively – the thicker plate is located outside – and at the two lower
locations of 40 mm – inside (blue) as well as outside (also blue). The finite element model displays each
plate by its midplane. Therefore, corresponding pictures show a distance of 45 mm above and 40 mm
below. For example, the gap can be easily seen in the attachment.
Contact elements overlay the touching sides of the plates (attachment 2.2.6). They only allow the transfer of
pressure and avoid tension. In the numerical code suitable “off-sets” remove the mideplanes in a way that
each initial gap shown before closes completely before starting the calculation. Vanishing cohesion and
friction avoid shear stresses in the contact planes. Each pair of plates is connected with 19 screws, which are
prestressed to guarantee a certain contact pressure between the plates. Since the contact plane is not able
to carry any shear loads, the screws have to take them. Therefore, the model uses beam elements to enable
the evaluation of shear forces and axial forces.
Prestressing of the screws is simulated by an appropriate prestrain:
FV
εV = (2.1)
A⋅E
The prestressing force required in equation (2.1) is known as well as the cross section area of the screw and
Young’s modulus of the steel.
Articulation between front shield and middle shield:

The middle and the front part of the shield skin are connected by a articulation, which allows controlling of the
tunneling machine when driving. Its detailed modelling in the static proof is not necessary, however, the
mechanical behavior must be specified correctly. This serves a double modelling of the circle line at the
articulation and the nodes lying on it (figure 1).
The construction of the articulation allows a jump of the traverse shift and a (local) rotation around the
circumferential direction. Therefore, these two degrees of freedom of two overlapping nodes are set free,
while the other four degrees of freedom are coupled. In other words, two overlapping nodes will be forced to
take the same radial deflection, the same circumferential displacement and the same rotation around the
longitudinal and the radial axis of the shield construction (attachment 2.2.7). The approach causes a
vanishing axial force and a locally vanishing moment around the circumferential direction, what reflects the
mechanical characteristics of the articulation (see figure 1). The method described yields some
consequences due to rigid body motion, i. e. calculation of compensation loads and use of “artificial”
boundary conditions become necessary (section 2.5.3).
page 7 of 25
Figure 1: Articulation modelling between front shield and middle shield
2.3 Safety factors

Due to the current codes of practice (for example [4]), each safety check is carried out regarding partial
safety factors. In particular, they take the following values:
- γ M = 1.10 on material properties (especially concerning yield stress)
- γ F = 1.35 on self-weight, jacking forces, forces from the torsion beam (support of torsion moment),
forces and moments resulting from the suspension of the screw conveyor and all loads at the main
bearing
- γ F = 1.50 on soil pressure, water pressure and erector loads
Stress verifications use design loads, i. e. taking into account the specified partial safety factors γ F . In
contrast, checks of deformation (serviceability) will be carried out with service loads, γ F = 1.00 . Partial safety
factors for the material properties are applied in all calculations.
2.4 Material properties

All statically relevant members and sheets of the shield construction consist of a rolled steel S335J2+N –
also 1.0577 – according to DIN EN 10025-2:2005-04 [1]. Item „+N“ stands for the normalized state.
Young’s modulus and density amount to
- E = 210,000 N/mm² and
page 8 of 25
- ρ = 7,850 kg/m³ (same standard, however, part 1).2
For different sheet thicknesses d standards [1] give different minimum elastic limits ReH , tensile strengths
R m and minimum elongations at failure ε Br . Table 1 summarizes the data needed. In the design calculations
yield stresses σF result from the minimum elastic limits taking into account partial safety factor γ M
introduced above (section 2.3):
σF = ReH / γ M (2.2)
The finite element model must note the dependence of the yield stress on the plate thickness, for which
reason several material groups are established. Attachments 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 illustrate the cassification of
certain structural members. Additionally, table 1 explains the meaning of colors.
Smaller cutouts or holes in certain sheets are not modelled for reasons of simplicity but considered by a
quartered modulus of elasticity. At affected locations components lose an appropriate part of their stiffness.
In the attachments mentioned above, yellow color represents plates with thickness 63 − 80 mm and green
color plates with 80 − 100 mm thickness, both with reduced stiffness.
Table 1: Material properties as functions of plate thickness

plate thickness elastic limit design value tensile strength strain at failure colors in
attachment 2.4
d [mm] ReH [N/mm²] σF [N/mm²] Rm [N/mm²] εBr [%]
3 < d ≤ 16 355 323 470 22 --------
16 < d ≤ 40 345 314 470 22 turquoise
40 < d ≤ 63 335 305 470 21 violet
63 < d ≤ 80 325 295 470 20 red
80 < d ≤ 100 315 286 470 20 blue
100 < d ≤ 150 295 268 450 18 --------
The total strain splits in an elastic part (Hooke’s law) and a plastic one, which results from the von Mises flow
theory. Generally, in the nonlinear regime the hardening modulus amounts to one-thousandth of Young’s
modulus, i. e. H = 210 N/mm² . To guarantee numerical convergence, for sheets with thickness 70 − 90 mm
the hardening modulus must be chosen ten times higher, namely H = 2,100 N/mm² . The modification can be
accepted due to the lower yield stresses (table 1) and additional load-bearing capacities of the steel in the
plastic regime. Figure 2 graphically illustrates the applied constitutive laws as functions of the plate
thicknesses. On one hand, the approach described simulates linear elastic, ideal plastic material behavior
and, on the other hand, stabilizes numerical integration of the material law duríng the finite element analysis.
2 The model of the shield construction does not include all installed equipment. In sufficient approximation, the steel density is
increased in a way, that the total mass of the modell matches the total mass of the tunneling machine (≈ 216 to).
page 9 of 25
400
σ [N/mm²]
300
16 to 40 mm
41 to 63 mm
200 64 to 80 mm
81 to 100 mm
100
ε [%]
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Figure 2: Applied constitutive laws for different plate thicknesses
Hexagon screws M24-HV fix the erector support frame to the shield. The corresponding property class 10.9
implies a nominal tensile strength fu , b , k ≥ 1,000 N/mm² and a minimum yield stress f y , b , k ≥ 900 N/mm² at
elongation 0.2%, respectively [2].
Then, standards (for example [4]) define the design shear resistance per screw as follows
Va , R , d = A ⋅ α a ⋅ fu , b , k / γ M
= 452 mm² ⋅ 0.55 ⋅ 1,000 N/mm² / 1.1 α a = 0.55 (pr. class 10.9) (2.3)
= 226 kN
and the design tension resistance per screw (smooth shaft – A – or screw thread at the shear joint – AS ):
⎧A⋅f A ⋅f ⎫
N R , d = min ⎨ y , b , k ; S u , b , k ⎬
⎩ 1.1⋅ γ M 1.25 ⋅ γ M ⎭
⎧ 452 ⋅ 900 353 ⋅ 1000 ⎫ (2.4)
= min ⎨ ; ⎬N
⎩ 1.1⋅ 1.1 1.25 ⋅ 1.1 ⎭
= 257 kN
Screw forces resulting from the calculations are compared with the limit values derived here.
Regardless, a sufficient pre-stress of about 220 kN – due to M24 – is to make sure. It can be applied by a
tighting moment of 800 Nm, if lubricated and hot-dipped screws are used (according to DIN 18 800-7).
2.5 Boundary conditions and load assumptions

The numerical model must reflect the boundary conditions and loads occuring in reality. The chapter
describes the approaches used. Statements concerning loading can be found in section 2.5.1, section 2.5.2
page 10 of 25
explains the interaction between shield and soil. Further assumptions required by the numerical procedure
are discussed in section 2.5.3.
2.5.1 Loads
A derivation of the chosen load assumptions can be found in annex „Loads“ [8]. Therefore, the current
section is limited to a description of the approaches used. Scales in the attachments already include partial
safety factors discussed in section 2.3 (design loads). Figures in the text describe physical loads without any
safety factors.
Water pressure pW reaches 4 bar = 0.4 MPa at the machine axis level and was specified by the client.
Vertical soil pressure is po = pu = 0.61MPa , the horizontal one ps = 1.02 MPa . Using the radius of the
tunneling machine r and the water density ρW the given data helps to calculate the radial loads acting on
the shield skin:
pr = pw − ρW ⋅ g ⋅ r ⋅ sin ϕ + cos ϕ ⋅ ps term resulting from pW and ps
1 (2.5)
+ (po + pu ) ⋅ sin ϕ − 1 (po − pu ) ⋅ sin ϕ ⋅ sin ϕ term resulting from po and pu
2 2
The angular coordinate ϕ describes the circumferential direction in a counter-clockwise manner
(mathimatically positive) and starts at three o’clock position. Attachment 2.5.1 illustrates the resulting
circumferential distribution of the radial pressure pr , which does not change lengthwise. Water pressure
acting on the submerged wall is shown in attachment 2.5.2.
Further loads applied on the front part of the shield construction are plotted in attachments 2.5.3 (forces) and
2.5.4 (moments). The shield skin takes a counter-clockwise couple of forces resulting from the torsion beam.
Forces on the left (in summa 480 kN ) show to the top, forces on the right to the bottom (in summa 480 kN ,
too). The lengthwise acting force at the main bearing, 4,830 kN , is modelled like a distributed load over the
inner cylinder. The tilting moment of 5,794 kNm that turns down the front part of the machine is uniformly
applied to the front circle of the main bearing. In contrast, the vertical load acting there ( 1,884 kN ) is only
distributed to a 105°-sector. Finally, at the cutter head compensation forces and moments are modelled to
satisfy global equilibrium conditions. For details, see section 2.5.3.
The ring girder behind the main bearing, which stiffens the shield skin, takes the straining resulting from eight
horizontal forces ( 1,800 kN each, to the front). These forces are caused by the articulation cylinders. In
addition, four points of application due to the suspension loads of the screw conveyor must be taken into
account. There, horizontal forces amount to 115 kN , vertical forces to 46 kN and the torsion moments to
14 kNm . Horizontal forces describe a moment caused by self weight. Since of that, they give tension above
and pressure below. Attachments 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 illustrate the loads discussed.
Forces (attachment 2.5.7) and moments (attachment 2.5.8) acting at the erector support frame can be
described as follows. At both sides of the track system 400 kN horizontally act to the rear, at the connections
to the erector frame 15 kN to the bottom on each side and in the middle of the frame another 160 kN to the
bottom, again. The bending moment applied at the track system results from moving the vertical load to the
erector support frame. Consequently, it amounts to 3.5 m ⋅ 15 kN = 52.5 kNm on both sides. Finally, the
erector support frame carries a torsion moment of 93 kNm .
page 11 of 25
At the midsection of the tunneling machine eight horizontal forces resulting from the articulation cylinders
orientated to the rear must be modelled ( 1,800 kN each). Additionally, twelve thrust cylinders cause groups
of forces ( 2,200 kN in summa). Like has been done at the front of the machine the tail shield takes
equilibrium forces and moments to balance the whole construction (see section 2.5.3). Attachments 2.5.9
and 2.5.10 show the discussed loading.
2.5.2 Elastic foundation

The elastic foundation in the soil is the most important bedding of the shield construction. Over the total
tunnel track the oedometric modulus has been determined to be ES = [3.5 ... 482] N/mm² . As usual, the
foundation modulus is calculated from
k ≈ ES / r with r = 2.42 m : radius of TBM (2.6)
and therefore results in a band width k = [1.5 ... 200] MN/m³ . Logarithmic averaging – the band width covers
two orders of magnitude – leads to k = 20 MN/m³ . As reflected by experience, the simplification suffices but
has been also confirmed with the help of variants of calculation. It is also of importance that the elastic
foundation is assumed to be constant during a calculation. Especially, it is not a function of the deflection
(linear foundation after Winkler), also see section 2.5.3. Physically, one has to expect a foundation modulus
increasing with deflection. But appropriate data is not available and should be covered by the band width.
Numerous investigations while establishing the current report have shown that the absolute size of the
foundation modulus does not remarkably influence the deformation behavior of the shield construction. A
suitable estimation explains the statement in the following section 2.5.3. Additionally, the geological survey
report calls the soil relatively stiff (upper range limit given above) at the locations with the highest soil and
water pressures. Therefore and for reasons of another stabilization of the numerical algorithm, the highest
foundation modulus is used in all calculations:
k d = 200 MN/m³ (design value) (2.7)
The elastic foundation can only carry pressure, while tension is not transferred. The finite element model
implements this characteristic by pressure only bars, which are fixed to the shield skin into radial direction
(attachment 2.5.11). According to finite element theory, the stiffnes of each bar or spring is calculated taking
the shell element area and the shape functions into account. The method especially models the interaction
between very differently stiff materials – like steel and soil in the current investigation – in a suitable manner.
The approach is exact within finite element theory.3
2.5.3 Further assumptions

Further assumptions help to yield a preferably simple calculation. These assumptions are explained or
established as follows.
3 Building up the finite element model controlling stiffness by the bar length is the easiest way, since then only one material group
is needed for the pressure only bars (see attachment 2.5.11). Calculation of a single bar length is carried out in a program loop
over all nodes of the shield skin.
page 12 of 25
Rigid body motion induced by external loads
Considering the tunneling machine one has to distinguish external loads like soil or water pressure and
stressing that comes from the interaction with the soil. Present ground water causes buoyancy, which pushes
up the shield into the ground. Opposite, self weight yields a rigid body motion of the machine to the bottom.
The resulting forces determine the interaction with the soil. It can be shown, that both effects cancel each
other in a certain way and that they consequently need not be investigated in detail in the current static
analysis.
Buoyancy amounts to:
FA = r 2 ⋅ π ⋅ L ⋅ ρW ⋅ g
(2.8)
= 2.422 ⋅ π ⋅ 9.3 ⋅ 9.81 kN = 1,680 kN
Dead weight is determined by the total mass of the shield construction including the erector, the screw
conveyor and other equipment. The client has specified it to be 216 t , what coresponds to FG = 2,120 kN .
The resultant is 440 kN and pushes the tunneling machine down. A sector of 30° degrees two times is
assumed, in which the vertical base pressure has got a cosine distribution (no pressure at the sector
boundaries, maximum pressure in the sector middle, see figure 3). Then, the vertical peak pressure pmax can
calculated from
+π / 6
FG − FA = L ⋅ ∫p max ⋅ cos (3ϕ) ⋅ r ⋅ dϕ = 440 kN (2.9)

−π / 6
and reaches
3 ⋅ (FG − FA ) 3 ⋅ 440
pmax = = kPa ≈ 0.03 MN/m² . (2.10)
2⋅L ⋅r 2 ⋅ 9.3 ⋅ 2.42
Using the foundation modulus derived in section 2.5.2 equation (2.10) delivers a maximum computational
penetration of the tunneling machine into the ground, which is less than one millimeter. The calculated rigid
body motion is not statically relevant and a simulation of the effects resulting from buoyancy and dead weight
can be omitted. Interaction between soil and steel only causes negligible additional stresses in the shield
construction.
Figure 3: Estimation of maximum base pressure
page 13 of 25
Water pressure only sligtly varies in the circumferential direction. Remarkable bending moments in the shield
skin can be only caused by the circumferential distribution of earth pressure. Again, a comparable estimation
like before shows that possible rigid body motions can not effect the calculated stresses and deformations in
a certain manner.
Conclusion: Simulation of a single state suffices to design the shield construction.
Compensation forces and moments

Elastic foundation of the tunneling machine in the ground corresponds to a vertical and horizontal
(transverse) bearing in the model. Moreover, it avoids larger rotations around the vertical and the radial axis.
The remaining two degrees of freedom, however, allow a rigid body motion lengthwise and a rigid body
rotation around the longitudinal axis. Because of the articulation discussed in section 2.2, the statement
separately holds for the front and the rear part of the shield construction.
To guarantee convergence of the numerical algorithm, “artificial” bearings must be introduced that must not
carry any reaction forces. This would lead to corrupted results. Therefore, circumferential compensation
forces and compensation moments act to the front shield and the tail shield. They can be calculated from the
global equilibrium conditions a priori. The attachments according to section 2.5.1 serve for illustration.
As an example, horizontal longitudinal equilibrium is considered at the rear part of the machine (see
attachments 2.5.7 and 2.5.9). All in all, the compensation force FAG at the tail shield must balance twelve
thrust cylinders (force FVZ each), eight articulation cylinders (force FGZ each) and the horizontal loads at the
track system. It is applied like a circumferential line load p AG . Use of the radius of the shield construction
yields
12 ⋅ FVZ − 8 ⋅ FGZ − FFW
p AG = . (in [kN/m] ) (2.11)
2⋅π⋅r
Quantity p AG describes the maximum lengthwise tension that can occur in the tail shield. In reality, this kind
of stressing reduces over the length of the tail shield by friction between the tunneling machine and the soil /
tubbing segments. Consequently, the approach is conservative according to stress verification.
Analogously, compensation forces at the front shield (attachment 2.5.3) are calculated from articulation
forces (attachment 2.5.5), water pressure at the submerged wall (attachment 2.5.2) and the horizontal
reaction at the main bearing (2.5.3). The resultant from the horizontal supension forces at the screw
conveyor becomes zero.
The compensation moment around the longitudinal axis needed at the front shield (attachment 2.5.4) is
calculated from the couple forces at the torsion beam support (attachment 2.5.3) and the torsion moment
coming from the suspension of the screw conveyor (attachment 2.5.6). It is applied like a line moment at the
front shield.
Finally, at the rear part of the tunneling machine a compensation moment (attachment 2.5.10) is required due
to the moment in the middle of the erector support frame (attachment 2.5.8).
“Artificial “ bearings
After having modelled compensation loading the numerical algorithm can be stabilized by suitable “artificial“
bearings.
page 14 of 25
The articulation splits up the tunneling machine into two parts, which have to be beared at a single point to
suppress a lengthwise shift (attachment 2.5.12). The location of the points does not matter, since the correct
calculation of the horizontal compensation forces avoids any reaction. Comparably, couplings (not bearings)
of the vertical deflection of two points at the rear and the front part prevent a rotation of the shield
construction around the machine axis (attachment 2.5.13). Thereby, each pair of coupled points must lie
oppositely at the lengthwise axis level.
The described “artificial” bearings do not influence deformation and stress regime of the shield construction.
page 15 of 25
3 Results and Interpretation
The chapter summarizes the results from the investigations carried out. Section 3.1 starts with some general
remarks to explain certain approaches and methods. In section 3.2 the design criteria are introduced. The
actual evaluation of the “reference case” is done due to stress verification (3.3), proof of serviceability (3.4)
and stressing of the screws at the erector support frame (3.6). While section 3.5 deals with some special load
cases, an overall assessment finishes the chapter (3.7).
3.1 General remarks concerning the investigations

To allow a preferably interpretation and documentation of results, variations of load combinations are
avoided as far as possible. In each investigation all loads discussed before are applied and the system
response is calculated – except for expressly stated otherwise. This approach clearly yields conservative
results since of always assuming the worst case. For example, a separate consideration of the injection
pressure at the tail shield can be passed, because the corresponding load case is already covered by the
most unfavourable soil and water pressure which act over the entire shield skin.
The constitutive material law used here includes plastic flow. Theory allows only small strains, i. e. linearized
kinematic relations.4 Commonly, finite element practice works with generalized nonlinear kinematic
equations, which cover the special case mentioned before. Thereby, resulting deformations always become
higher than in linear theory (conservative approach).
In the current investigations numerical difficulties caused by nonlinear kinematics will occur, if all loads act
simultaneously. Partially, convergence can not be established since of strong (local) stressing of single
members. However, if only soil and water pressure are applied, calculations will succed. The load case
consequently was used to estimate the influence of nonlinear kinematics on the resulting deformations. This
is permissible because relevant deformations appear at the tail shield and are only weakly affected by the
internal forces. Like expected, calculated stresses have been nearly identical in both cases. Since only the
radial deformation at the tail shield has got any significance concerning serviceability, the comparison was
limited to the foregoing aspect. Details due to effects of nonlinear kinematics can be found in section 3.3.
Theory of solid mechanics always gives mathematical stress and strain singularities at cracks and notches.
Such unavoidable points of infinity also occur at welded edges. That aspect has to be taken into account
when evaluating results, which have been calculated with numerical models. It can be done with the help of a
detailed post-processing of stresses and strains in the vicinity. In this context, the evaluation at the so called
Gauss-points – the internal integration points of a single finite element – and their distances to the
mathematical singularity have got certain importance. Further estimations and experiences allow to assess
the mechanical relevance of local peak values in the distributions of the field quantities.
Partial safety factors given in standards of civil engineering accommodate the need for safety due to not
quantifiable uncertainties in the data basis. In our opinion, at least the specifications of internal forces are
comparably better supported in the present study. In contrast to the usual way, local plastic flow is therefore
accepted in the design. Indeed, steel has got only weak hardening characteristics in the current report, but a
4In this context, “kinematics” are the equations which describe the relations of displacements and strains. In linear theory strains
are calculated as sums of displacement derivatives, in nonlinear theory quadratic terms of the derivatives additionally occur.
page 16 of 25
certain margin of load bearing capacity can be activated. Consequently, the design uses an extra strain
criterion, which limits the plastic strain to an allowable value (see next section).
3.2 Design criteria

Post-processing and evaluation is done on the basis of three criteria listed and explained below:
1. Stress verification is to show that the material straining in the shield skin and other important members
do not exceed a critical level. In a purely elastic analysis the yield stress (design value of the elastic
limit) after table 1 is the critical value. Here, a local meeting or slight exceeding of the computational
design value is accepted because of the reasons discussed in section 3.1. This is justified as follows:
- In a statistical sense, the elastic limit values taken from standards are fractiles (not average values
or expected values).
- Additionally, the yield stress has been reduced by the partial safety factor γ M = 1.10 .
- The articulation forces cause most local plastic flow. Due to the current codes of practice in civil
engineering they are increased with a partial safety factor γ F = 1.35 during the stress verification.
Client’s information determines the forces to be technically limited to a maximum of 1,800 kN that
excludes a further increase. The statement would correspond to a safety factor 1.0 .
- Client’s experiences with the construction of articulation cylinders suggest a sufficient dimensioning.
- For reasons of safety, the constitutive law (section 2.4) includes only weak hardening. In reality,
much stronger hardening may be expected (figure 2).
The eqivalent stress (von Mises) σV is used as a measure for exceeding the flow limit. Since steel has
got similar constitutive characteristics under tension and pressure, a comparison with the yield stress
suffices. Therfore, it is firstly postulated:
σV ≤ σF with σF from table 1
If the condition is met, material failure as a consequence of plastic flow can be excluded immediately.
At points with local violation of the criterion the stress state is in the plastic regime.5 Because of the
weak hardening only small exceeding of the flow stress can cause relatively high plastic strains.
Therefore, evaluations of the maximum plastic strain and the equivalent plastic strain are also carried
out. Both quantities must not reach one tenth of the strain at failure ε Br . The stress verification is
therefore completed like follows:
ε max
pl
, εvpl ≤ εvpl, zul = 0.1⋅ ε Br ≈ 2% with ε Br from table 1
2. Serviceability of tunneling machines maybe constrained by too large radial displacements at the tail
shield. That deformation reduces the gap between the shield and the tubbing segment to be built in and
can make the building process more difficult or even impossible in extreme cases. Therefore, an
adequate gap is needed and a sufficient limitation of the inward radial deflection becomes necessary.
5 Since of the explained reasons there is a remarkable diffrence between the calculated plastic zones and the (much smaller)
plastic zones that have to be expected in reality. Consequently, a certain safety margin due to the bearing capacity exists.
page 17 of 25
The serviceability proof is verified under service loads, i. e. corresponding safety factors are 1.0. As an
experience value the allowable inward radial displacement is chosen to be u r , zul = 0.03 m and the
criterion is formulated:
u r ≤ u r , zul = 0.03 m .
3. The screws at the erector support frame must be checked due to allowable axial forces and shear
forces. It is noted, that the applicable shear force can be composed of two components. According to
the limit values derived in section 2.4 two criteria are formulated, which must be met for each screw:
Q y2 + Qz2 ≤ Va , R , d = 226 kN and
N ≤ N R , d = 257 kN
3.3 Stress verification and plastic strains under design loads

The stress analysis covers all possible load combinations by simultaneous application of all design loads, i. e.
taking partial safety factors (section2.3) into account. In the following, the investigation is called “Reference
case”. Special results are discussed.
Attachment 3.3.1 shows the vertical displacements. A weak incline of the front shield to the front can be
seen. It is caused by the non-uniform distribution of the self weight and the load assumptions at the main
bearing. Like has been predicted in section 2.5.3, a downward rigid body motion is not considered. In
contrast, the deflections at the rear part mainly describe deformations of the less stiffened tail shield.
The incline of the front shield is also illustrated in attachment 3.3.2, which pictures the horizontal lengthwise
displacement (uniform contours). The articulation opens the axial degree of freedom and yields – together
with the artificial bearing at the bottom – a special distribution of the deflection. Of course, the displacement
vanishes at the bearing. During shield tunneling controlling with the articulation cylinders avoid any incline.
Important deformations do not appear as shown for the middle shield and the tail shield.
Inward radial deflections reach up to seven millimeters at the tail shield, which is least stiffened (attachment
3.3.3). Due to serviceability they will not become critical, because the criterion u r , zul = 0.03 m is met. The
radial deformations at the front shield do not have any significance, since they reflect the incline already
discussed (mathematical signs of deflections).
The equivalent stress illustrates the stress level of the steel in attachment 3.3.4 (shield skin) as well as in
attachments 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 (stiffening members). The yield limit of about 300 N/mm² is weakly exceeded at
the most strongly stressed components. The discussed singularities cause and increase peak values. A
detailed evaluation leads to the assessment that the suspension plates at the erector frame (at the shield),
the front part of the main bearing und the lower area at the front ring girder – at the connection to the shield –
are mostly stressed.
The suspension plates at the erector support frame take a relatively high stress level, since the frame stiffens
the construction at its rear part. Consequently, it has to carry the bigger part of the outer soil and water
pressure, especially in horizontal direction. According to the front ring girder, one has to take into account,
that the articulation forces have been increased by safety factors, though they are limited in reality.
Additionally, the ring girder is not stiffend at the bottom. There, stresses are locally transferred into the shield
page 18 of 25
skin, which is simultaneously strained by the outer loads. Therefore, the strongest stressing occurs at the
discussed location. All in all, the calculated stress distribution can be easily explained.
The contour plot of the equivalent plastic strain (attachment 3.3.7) supports the distribution of the stress
level. A vanishing plastic strain confirms the statement that peak stresses result from singularities.
Remaining locations with plastic deformations are the main bearing, the front girder and the adjacent part of
the shield skin. Maximum plastic strain reaches about 1%, that is only one half of the conservative limit value
εvpl, zul = 2% established above.
Like it has been already explained, the reference case is investigated with linearized kinematic equations
due to convergence difficulties in the kinematically nonlinear calculation. Cases “Shield1” (linear kinematics)
and “Shield2” (nonlinear kinematics) serve for benchmarking, i. e. to estimate the influence of the modified
approach. Both investigations only involve the outer forces, namely soil and water pressure. Attachments
3.3.8 and 3.3.10 show the calculated radial displacements, attachments 3.3.9 and 3.3.11 the resulting stress
levels.
As has been expected, remarkably different field quantities exclusively occur at the tail shield, since only
there the pre-conditions of larger displacements are met. Stresses nearly do not change in the nonlinear
calculation in comparison with the linear one. They are far away from the critical level (yield stress). The
maximum inward radial deflection increases from 6.5 mm up to 8.5 mm . Both results surely fulfill the
criterion u r ≤ u r , zul = 0.03 m . Transferring the increase of approximately 30% to the reference case expected
maximum deflections at the tail shield will keep noncritical: u r ,max ≈ 1.3 ⋅ 0.008 m ≈ 0.01 m (compare with
attachment 3.3.3).
3.4 Deformations under service loads

To obtain a realistic estimation of the displacements the proof of serviceability is carried out under service
loads, i. e. without any partial safety factors (load case “Service Loads”). To make the results comparable
with the results of the reference case scales in corresponding attachments matches:
- radial displacement: attachment 3.4.1 (attachment 3.3.3 in reference case)
- stress level: attachments 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 (attachments 3.3.4 up to 3.3.6 in RC)
- plastic strain: attachment 3.4.4 (attachment 3.3.7 in reference case)
The highest calculated inward radial displacement amounts to less than 6.0 mm under service loads. Taking
the safety margin of approximately 30% estimated above into account, the maximum inward deflection
reaches about u r ,max = 1.3 ⋅ 0.006 m ≤ 0.01 m . The criterion of serviceability u r ≤ u r , zul = 0.03 m is surely met.
Like expected, stressing of the tunneling machine has considerably reduced in comparison with the
reference case. Of primarily importance is the fact of a remarkable contraction of areas, which join the plastic
regime. The result confirms the statement of a sufficient dimensioning of the shield construction in the
foregoing section. Of course, reduction of the stress level is associated with smaller plastic strains. In
comparison with the reference case the maximum value has halved and amounts to nearly 0.5% .
page 19 of 25
3.5 Special load cases
Load case ”Shield driving to the right“

A linear distribution of the articulation forces over the horizontal axis assigns the load case shield driving to
the right (figure 4). The peak value reaches 1,800 kN . All other loading approaches correspond to those of
the reference case, particularly, the same partial safety factors are used.
Figure 4: Distribution of articulation forces, load case ”Shield driving to the right”
Attachment 3.5.1 illustrates the lengthwise deflections in a topview. Higher articulation forces act on the left,
namely below in the plot. The left side of the front shield shifts 4 cm to the front, while the applied moment
moves the right side 2 cm to the rear. The constant part of the deflection is (4 cm − 2 cm) / 2 = 1 cm on
average. The linear part reaches about (4 cm + 2 cm) / 2 = 3 cm and is caused by the rotation around the
vertical axis.
Attachment 3.5.2 shows the horizontal transverse displacements, also in a topview. Like expected, the shield
construction moves to the right at its front and rear ( 1.5 cm up in the plot, negative sign) and to the left at the
articulation ( 1.6 cm down in the plot, positive sign). The averaged displacement at the rear describes the part
due to rigid body motion there. It amounts to 0.5 ⋅ (1.7 + 0.3 ) cm = 1.0 cm and will be used to check
serviceability.
page 20 of 25
The maximum inward radial displacement at the tail shield (attachment 3.5.3, into driving direction left)
reaches about 1.7 cm . Taking into account the part of rigid body motion 1.0 cm obtained from attachment
3.5.2 a remaining deflection of 0.7 cm affects serviceability. The result nearly corresponds to the one
concerning the reference case and again surely meets the criterion of serviceability. A comparable
consideration due to the right side of the tail shield yields the same statement.
Attachment 3.5.4 illustrates the stress level in the shield skin while attachments 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 do it
according to the internal members. Like has been expected, maximum stresses occur in the vicinity of the left
articulation cylinders. There, in comparison to the reference case not only the articulation forces are applied
but the tunneling machine is also pressed into the ground. The effect additionally increases stressing. Load
factor becomes relatively high but barely acceptable under the side conditions given here. In this context, the
partial safety factors used in the calculation must be remembered. Plastic strain distribution supports the
assessment (attachment 3.5.7).
Load case ”shield driving to the right“ can be used to check the correct modelling of the pressure only elastic
foundation and to demonstrate it graphically. Attachment 3.5.8 shows the foundation reactions due to four
lines of springs at three o’clock, six o’clock, nine o’clock and twelve o’ clock position. For a better orientation,
the model of the shield construction has been added to the plot. Red bars do not carry any stress, i. e. the
machine moves away from the ground. In contrast, green and blue color indicate locations, where the shield
is pressed into the soil. On the right side of the machine, this happens at front and rear and on the left side at
the articulation. Additionally, the front part of the machine goes down since of the moments and forces acting
at the main bearing. Foundation reactions consequently reflect the displacement regime that has been
already discussed.
The statements concerning to load case ”shield driving to the right“ analogously keep valid for the load cases
“shield driving to the left”, “shield driving up” and “shield driving down”.
Load case ”Articulation under tension“

In load case “Articulation under tension” each cylinder transfers a tensile force of 450 kN instead of a
compressive force. Thrust forces, forces from the torsion beam (cutter wheel does not move) and axial forces
at the main bearing vanish secondarily. Attachments 3.5.9 to 3.5.11 illustrate the radial displacement and the
stress level for the considered load case. Radial deflections are especially determined by soil and water
pressure and, therefore, do not vary much in comparison with the reference case. But in the region of the
articulation the stress level reduces significantly. Like expected, the statement holds good as well for the
shield skin as for the ring girder. Furthermore, main results of the reference case keep valid.
3.6 Screw forces at the erector support frame

Due to the reference case, a detailed evaluation of the screw forces and the stressing of the erector sheets
has been carried out. Attachment 3.6.1 illustrates the contact pressure at the modelled plates. It amounts up
to 7 N/mm² what is interpreted as noncritical.
Straining of the screws can be either evaluated by the stresses or directly by the corresponding stress
resultants. For example, the second variant is illustrated in attachment 3.6.2 due to the axial forces in the
reference case. Only the maximum value 60 kN is of any importance, because it confirms that the allowable
limit N R , d = 257 kN deduced in section 2.4 is not reached. Theoretically calculated compressive forces do
page 21 of 25
not have any physical significance and are substituted by weakly increased contact pressure at the plates in
reality. Shear forces can be similarly evaluated as the axial forces, summed like described in section 3.2 and,
at last, compared with the allowable shear force deduced in section 2.4, Va , R , d = 226 kN .
Displaying lists containing the stress resultants is more practicle than the interpretation of plots when
postprcessing finite element results according to the screws. Attachment 3.6.3 suggests the internal
numbering. It is used in attachments 3.6.4 and 3.6.5 which list the stress resultants. Thereby, attachment
3.6.4 concerns the reference case while attachment 3.6.5 introduces the load case shield driving to the right
that is of more interest due to the screw forces. Additionally, maximum values are summarized in table 2.
Degrees of utilization will amount to about one fourth, if both modes are considered separately. However,
screws have to carry axial forces and shear forces simultaneously. An equivalent axial tension force can be
easily derived from the flow rule
Feq = N t2 + 3Q 2 , with N t = 0.5 ⋅ (N + N ) (3.1)
wherein N t only contributes when positiv, i. e. screws are going under tension. Evaluation of forces given in
attachments 3.6.4 and 3.6.5 will lead to a little bit higher stressing, if mixed mode straining is taken into
account. The resulting stress level is still far away from critical values.
Table 2: Maximum screw forces

load case reference case shield driving to the right
maximum axial force [kN] 59.6 75.6
design value N R , d = 257 kN N R , d = 257 kN
degree of utilization [%] 23.2 29.4
maximum shear force [kN] 53.1 62.1
design value Va , R , d = 226 kN Va , R , d = 226 kN
degree of utilization [%] 23.5 27.5
equivalent force Feq[kN] 92.0 107.6
design value N R , d = 257 kN N R , d = 257 kN
degree of utilization Feq [%] 35.8 41.9
3.7 Overall assessment

Static analysis of shield construction TB 485 H-GS/EPB is based on several load cases investigated in the
current report and allows an engineering overall assessment. The assessment keeps only valid due to the
input data and the modelling assumptions used here.
page 22 of 25
At a few locations plastic flow occurs when using the introduced data basis, especially load assumptions far
on the safe side. However, since of a set of conservative assumptions located plastic flow seems to be
acceptable under the current circumstances.
Dimensioning of the shield is judged to be sufficient and balanced like can be seen from the spatial
distribution of the calculated stress level.
A restriction of serviceability due to higher radial displacements at the tail shield is mathematically excluded.
The screws connecting the erector support frame to the shield are also adequately dimensioned. An
apperently remaining bearing capacity should not be reduced, since soil and water pressure always lead to a
kind of pressure regime in the erector support frame in the load cases considered here. In other words, lower
external pressure can yield higher tension in single screws.
page 23 of 25
4 Summary
By order of WIRTH MASCHINEN- UND BOHRGERÄTE-FABRIK GmbH, Erkelenz, in the current report
ZERNA INGENIEURE GmbH, Bochum, has established a static analysis of the shield construction TB 485
H-GS/EPB, project „Beoland“ based on finite element investigations. Results of the analysis can be
summarized as follows:
- Stress verifications locally show plastic zones. However, since plastic strains keep small the results are
categorized as acceptable.
- Due to the radial deformation at the shield tail the check at serviceability limit state succeeds without
restriction of any kind.
- The screws connecting the erector support frame to the shield are adequately dimensioned.
Besides the current codes of practice the static analysis bases on an input data table, which has been
arranged with the client as far as possible.
All investigations use certain load assumptions. Concerning soil properties, water pressure, non-
consideration of swelling characteristics of the ground and calculation assumptions after DAUB [9] an
agreement with the responsible geological survey consultant was not possible for ZERNA INGENIEURE.
The static analysis will lose its validity, if assumptions due to soil and water pressure are significantly
changed. Hence, we explicitly advise a verification of the load assumptions by an expert who is familiar with
the relations in situ. Furthermore, we refer to appendix “Loads”, which has been added to the current report.
page 24 of 25
5 Literature
[1] DIN EN 10025-2:2005-04: Warmgewalzte Erzeugnisse aus Baustählen – Teil 2: Technische Liefer-
bedingungen für unlegierte Baustähle
[2] DIN EN 14399-4:2006-06: Hochfeste planmäßig vorspannbare Schraubenverbindungen für den
Metallbau – Teil 4: System HV – Garnituren aus Sechskantschrauben und Muttern
[3] Geological survey report: Summary Report on Geotechnical Investigations for Design of „Visnjica
Tunnel
[4] Schneider Bautabellen für Ingenieure: 17. Auflage, Werner Verlag, 2006
[5] Zienkiewicz, Taylor: The Finite Element Method, Volume 1, McGraw-Hill Book Company
[6] Zienkiewicz, Taylor: The Finite Element Method, Volume 2, McGraw-Hill Book Company
[7] Eschenauer, Olhoff, Schnell: Applied Structural Mechanics, Springer,1997
[8] Appendix concerning load determination
[9] Deutscher Ausschuss für Unterirdisches Bauen (DAUB) – Arbeitskreis Schildstatik: Empfeh-
lungen für statische Berechnungen von Schildvortriebsmaschinen, Tunnel 07/2005
page 25 of 25
Attachments
Table of Attachments
Attachment 2.2.1: Plate thicknesses – general view

Attachment 2.2.2: Plate thicknesses – model without shield skin – from the front
Attachment 2.2.3: Plate thicknesses – model without shield skin – from behind
Attachment 2.2.4: Plate thicknesses – detailed view onto the erector support frame
Attachment 2.2.5: Plate thicknesses – half model
Attachment 2.2.6: Erector support frame – screw coupling
Attachment 2.2.7: Articulation in the FE-model
Attachment 2.4.1: Material groups – general view of the model
Attachment 2.4.2: Material groups – model without shield skin – from the front
Attachment 2.5.1: Soil and water pressure acting on the shield
Attachment 2.5.2: Water pressure acting on the submerged wall
Attachment 2.5.3: Forces acting on the front shield
Attachment 2.5.4: Moments acting on the front shield
Attachment 2.5.5: Forces acting on the ring girder
Attachment 2.5.6: Moments acting on the ring girder
Attachment 2.5.7: Forces acting on the erector support frame
Attachment 2.5.8: Moments acting on the erector support frame
Attachment 2.5.9: Forces acting on the middle shield and tail shield
Attachment 2.5.10: Moments acting on the middle shield and tail shield
Attachment 2.5.11: Radial elastic foundation
Attachment 2.5.12: “Artificial“ bearing – lengthwise deflection
Attachment 2.5.13: “Artificial” bearing – rotation around the machine axis
Attachment 3.3.1: Reference case, vertical displacement uy [m]

Attachment 3.3.2: Reference case, horizontal lengthwise displacement ux [m]
Attachment 3.3.3: Reference case, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachment 3.3.4: Reference case, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview
Attachment 3.3.5: Reference case, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], internal members
Attachment 3.3.6: Reference case, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], half model
Attachment 3.3.7: Reference case, equivalent plastic strain εvplast [-]
Attachment 3.3.8: Load case “Shield1”, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachment 3.3.9: Load case “Shield1”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview
Attachment 3.4.1: Load case “Service Loads”, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachment 3.4.2: Load case “Service Loads”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview
Attachment 3.4.3: Load case “Service Loads”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], half model
Attachment 3.4.4: Load case “Service Loads”, equivalent plastic strain εvplast [-]
Attachment 3.5.1: Load case “Shield driving right”, horizontal lengthwise displacement [m]
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.2: Load case “Shield driving right”,horizontal transverse displacement uz [m]
Attachment 3.5.3: Load case “Shield driving right”, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachment 3.5.4: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overviev
Attachment 3.5.5: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], without shield
Attachment 3.5.6: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], ring girder
Attachment 3.5.7: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent plastic strain εvplast [-]
Attachment 3.5.8: Load case “Shield driving right”, reaction of elastic foundation
Attachment 3.5.9: Load case “Articulation under tension”, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachment 3.5.10: Load case “Articulation under tension”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview
Attachment 3.5.11: Load case “Articulation under tension”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], half model
Attachment 3.6.1: Reference case, suspension of erector, contact pressure [N/mm²]
Attachment 3.6.2: Reference case, suspension of erector, axial forces in screws [MN]
Attachment 3.6.3: Suspension of erector, distribution of screws
Attachment 3.6.4: Reference case, forces in screws
Attachment 3.6.5: Load case “Shield driving right”, forces in screws
Attachments
Attachment 2.2.1:
Plate thicknesses – general view
violet: 20 mm
dark blue: 25 mm
red: 30 mm
dark green: 35 mm
blue: 40 mm
orange: 50 mm
green: 60 mm
yellow: 70 mm
turquoise: 90 mm
Attachments
Attachment 2.2.2:
violet: 20 mm
dark blue: 25 mm
red: 30 mm
dark green: 35 mm
Plate thicknesses – model without shield skin – from the front

blue: 40 mm
orange: 50 mm
green: 60 mm
yellow: 70 mm
turquoise: 90 mm
violet: 20 mm
dark blue: 25 mm
red: 30 mm
dark green: 35 mm
blue: 40 mm
Attachments
orange: 50 mm
Attachment 2.2.3:
green: 60 mm
yellow: 70 mm
turquoise: 90 mm
Plate thicknesses – model without shield skin – from behind

violet: 20 mm
dark blue: 25 mm
Attachments
red: 30 mm
Attachment 2.2.4:
dark green: 35 mm
blue: 40 mm
orange: 50 mm
green: 60 mm
yellow: 70 mm
turquoise: 90 mm
Plate thicknesses – detailed view onto the erector support frame

violet: 20 mm
dark blue: 25 mm
red: 30 mm
dark green: 35 mm
Attachments
blue: 40 mm
Attachment 2.2.5:
orange: 50 mm
green: 60 mm
yellow: 70 mm
turquoise: 90 mm
Plate thicknesses – half model

Attachments
Attachment 2.2.6:
erector plates with
screw coupling
erector support frame
Erector support frame – screw coupling

Suspension of erector frame
Attachments
Attachment 2.2.7: Articulation in the FE-model

violet: 40 < d ≤ 63 mm
red: 63 < d ≤ 80 mm
blue: 80 < d ≤ 100 mm
Attachments
turquoise: 16 < d ≤ 40 mm
Attachment 2.4.1:
with reduced Young’s modulus
green: 80 < d ≤ 100 mm
yellow: 63 < d ≤ 80 mm
Material groups – general view of the model

violet: 40 < d ≤ 63 mm
red: 63 < d ≤ 80 mm
Attachments
blue: 80 < d ≤ 100 mm
Attachment 2.4.2:
turquoise: 16 < d ≤ 40 mm
with reduced Young’s modulus

green: 80 < d ≤ 100 mm
yellow: 63 < d ≤ 80 mm
Material groups – model without shield skin – from the front

Attachments
Attachment 2.5.1: Soil and water pressure acting on the shield

Attachments
Attachment 2.5.2: Water pressure acting on the submerged wall

compensation force
Σ 4.5 MN
Attachments
Attachment 2.5.3:
0.48 MN · 1.35 = 0.65 MN
torsion beam
Forces acting on the front shield

0.48 MN · 1.35 = 0.65 MN Σ 4.83 MN · 1.35 = 6.52 MN
torsion beam pressure from cutter wheel
Σ 1.884 MN · 1.35 = 2.54 MN
self weight of cutter wheel
compensation moment (from torsion beam)
Attachments
Σ 3.2 MNm
Attachment 2.5.4:
bending moment from
cutter wheel
Σ 5.8 · 1.35 = 7.8 MNm
Moments acting on the front shield

Attachments
Attachment 2.5.5:
0.155 MN · 1.35 = 0.31 MN (Fh - tension)
0.046 MN · 1.35 = 0.062 MN (Fvertical)
2 suspensions for screw conveyor
1.8 MN · 1.35 = 2.43 MN

8 articulation cylinders
Forces acting on the ring girder

0.155 MN · 1.35 = 0.31 MN(Fh - pressure)
0.046 MN · 1.35 = 0.062 MN (Fvertical)
2 suspensions for screw conveyor
Attachments
14.0 kNm · 1.35 = 18.9 kNm
Attachment 2.5.6: Moments acting on the ring girder

Attachments
Σ 30 kN · 1.5 = 45 kN
Σ 0.8 MN · 1.5 = 1.2 MN

Σ 0.16 MN · 1.5 = 0.24 MN
Attachment 2.5.7: Forces acting on the erector support frame

Attachments
Σ 0.105 MNm · 1.5 = 0.1575 MNm

Σ 93 kNm · 1.5 = 139.5 kNm
Attachment 2.5.8: Moments acting on the erector support frame

Attachments
Attachment 2.5.9:
Forces acting on the middle shield and tail shield
compensation forces (including
2.2 MN · 1.35 = 2.97 MN 1.8 MN · 1.35 = 2.43 MN
erector loads): Σ 15 MN
12 thrust cylinders 8 articulation cylinders
Attachments
compensation moment due to erector loads:

Σ 0.14 MNm
Attachment 2.5.10: Moments acting on the middle shield and tail shield
cross section of an element series
Attachments
Attachment 2.5.11:
front shield middle shield tail shield
Radial elastic foundation

Attachments
Attachment 2.5.12: “Artificial“ bearing – lengthwise deflection

Attachments
Attachment 2.5.13: “Artificial” bearing – rotation around the machine axis

Attachments
side face
Attachment 3.3.1: Reference case, vertical displacement uy [m]

Attachments
side face
Attachment 3.3.2: Reference case, horizontal lengthwise displacement ux [m]

Attachments
Attachment 3.3.3: Reference case, radial displacement ur [m]

Attachments
Attachment 3.3.4: Reference case, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview

Attachments
Attachment 3.3.5: Reference case, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], internal members

Attachments
Attachment 3.3.6: Reference case, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], half model

Attachments
Attachment 3.3.7: Reference case, equivalent plastic strain εvplast [-]

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments
Attachment 3.4.1: Load case “Service Loads”, radial displacement ur [m]

Attachments
Attachment 3.4.2: Load case “Service Loads”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview
Attachments
Attachment 3.4.3: Load case “Service Loads”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], half model
Attachments
Attachment 3.4.4: Load case “Service Loads”, equivalent plastic strain εvplast [-]
Attachments
top view
Attachment 3.5.1: Load case “Shield driving right”, horizontal lengthwise displacement [m]
Attachments
top view
Attachment 3.5.2: Load case “Shield driving right”,horizontal transverse displacement uz [m]
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.3: Load case “Shield driving right”, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.4: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overviev
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.5: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], without shield
Attachments
view to the tail shield

view to the front shield
Attachment 3.5.6: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], ring girder
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.7: Load case “Shield driving right”, equivalent plastic strain εvplast [-]
Attachments
3.00
12.00
6.00
9.00
Attachment 3.5.8: Load case “Shield driving right”, reaction of elastic foundation
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.9: Load case “Articulation under tension”, radial displacement ur [m]
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.10: Load case “Articulation under tension”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], overview
Attachments
Attachment 3.5.11: Load case “Articulation under tension”, equivalent stress σv [N/mm²], half model
Attachments
contact planes
illustration of
Attachment 3.6.1: Reference case, suspension of erector, contact pressure [N/mm²]

Attachments
Attachment 3.6.2: Reference case, suspension of erector, axial forces in screws [MN]
Attachments
right down
right up
left down
left up
Attachment 3.6.3: Suspension of erector, distribution of screws

Attachments
mixed mode
element up/ left/ middle/ side/ axial force shear force
loading
number down right corner front [kN] [kN]
[kN]
1 up left middle side -24.7 30.9 53.4
2 up left middle side 25.5 37.8 70.2
5 up right middle side 28.1 39.3 73.6
6 up right middle side -19.8 31.6 54.8
7 down right middle side -35.0 13.9 24.1
9 down right middle side 51.2 20.3 62.2
11 down left middle side 59.6 20.7 69.5
13 down left middle side -25.4 12.7 22.0
17 up right corner 29.7 30.9 61.3
18 up right middle front 39.2 39.3 78.6
19 up right middle front -29.7 42.2 73.1
20 up right corner 3.4 36.6 63.5
22 up right corner 22.4 24.1 47.4
26 up right corner 11.3 38.6 67.8
27 up left corner 28.8 29.6 58.8
28 up left middle front 37.9 37.8 75.6
30 up left middle front -28.2 40.8 70.6
31 up left corner 4.0 35.3 61.2
33 up left corner 21.7 22.8 45.1
37 up left corner 11.7 37.9 66.6
38 down left middle front 27.9 15.6 38.8
39 down left corner 16.3 14.8 30.5
40 down left middle front -12.8 3.9 6.8
44 down left corner -9.6 20.5 35.6
49 down right middle front -19.0 4.3 7.5
50 down right corner 2.9 4.4 8.2
51 down right middle front 24.3 15.2 35.8
58 down right corner -10.6 21.3 36.9
Maximum 59.6 53.1 92.0
Mimimum -61.3
Attachment 3.6.4: Reference case, forces in screws

Attachments
mixed mode
element up/ left/ middle/ side/ axial force shear force
loading
number down right corner front [kN] [kN]
[kN]
17 up right corner 30.2 30.3 60.6
20 up right corner 3.4 37.6 65.1
22 up right corner 21.8 23.7 46.5
26 up right corner 11.1 42.3 74.0
27 up left corner 34.2 34.2 68.4
31 up left corner 1.8 40.2 69.7
33 up left corner 23.1 25.3 49.5
37 up left corner 10.5 43.8 76.5
44 down left corner -13.2 25.3 43.7
58 down right corner -10.8 20.3 35.1
Maximum 75.6 62.1 107.6
Mimimum -76.6
Attachment 3.6.5: Load case “Shield driving right”, forces in screws

Appendix „Loads“
of the Report
„Static Analysis and Structural Check of the
Shield Construction TB 485 H-GS/EPB
(Project Beoland)“
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 4
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5
2 Parameters of the Ground and Machine ....................................................................... 7

2.1 Soil parameters ...............................................................................................................................7
2.2 Machine properties .........................................................................................................................8
3. Load case 1 - Earth and Water Pressure at km 10+650,00 (BQ 3) ............................ 8
3.1 Geological cross section load case 1 ..........................................................................................8
3.2 Evaluation of loadings for load case 1 ........................................................................................8
3.2.1 Vertical stresses....................................................................................................................8
3.2.2 Lateral stresses ...................................................................................................................10
3.2.3 Water pressure and buoyancy ............................................................................................10
3.2.4 Foundation modulus ...........................................................................................................10
3.2.5 Load case 1 (BQ3) ..............................................................................................................11
4 Load Case 2 – Injection Pressure at km 10+816,07 (BQ 2)....................................... 12

4.1 Evaluation of loadings for load case 2 ......................................................................................13
4.1.1 Vertical and lateral stresses................................................................................................12
4.1.2 Foundation modulus ...........................................................................................................12
4.1.3 Loadc case 2 .......................................................................................................................13
5 Loadcase 3 – Shield driving to the right at km 7+287,31 (BQ 4).............................. 13

5.1 Evaluation of loadings for load case 3 ......................................................................................13
5.1.1 Load case 3 .........................................................................................................................14
6 Operating Loads............................................................................................................. 14
6.1 Load case 4: Thrust cylinders.....................................................................................................15
6.2 Load case 5: Pressure on submerged wall...............................................................................14
6.3 Load case 6: Torque support ......................................................................................................15
6.4 Load case 7: Erector loads..........................................................................................................15
6.5 Load case 8: Loads of screw conveyer ....................................................................................15
6.6 Load case 9: Loads of cutter head ( main bearing ) ................................................................16
Page 2 of 18
7. Load Combinations ....................................................................................................... 16
8. Literature......................................................................................................................... 18
Page 3 of 18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Load case 1...........................................................................................................................................11
Figure 2: Load case 2...........................................................................................................................................13
Figure 3: Load case 3...........................................................................................................................................14
Figure 4: Support point of screw conveyer..........................................................................................................16
List of Tables
Table 1: Soil parameters according to the soil expertise for each layer
Table 2: Soil parameters of geotechnical soil category A-E
Table 3: Choice of most unfavourable soil paramters between soil expertise (Tab.1) and geotechnical soil
category A-E (Tab. 2)
Table 4: Average values of soil parameters according to soil expertise for geotechnical soil category A - E
Table 5: Average values of soil parameters according to soil expertise for geotechnical soil category A – E
(Tab.4) and most unfavourable soil parameters (Tab.3)
Number of pages: 18
Page 4 of 18
1 Introduction
Purpose of this appendix is to determinate the loads on the shield of the tunnel boring machine based on
further assumptions.
The load assumptions are basic principles for the static calculation of the tunneling shield and based on the
geotechnical data [1] as well as the technical documents [2] of WIRTH GmbH.
Load specifications according to WIRTH GmbH:
 Load assumptions for cutter head (main bearing), I0004229 [9]

 TB 485 H-GS/EPB, Load assumptions for shield, Zg Nr. B0035386 [10]
The evaluation of the external loads are based on assumptions referring to the DAUB [3]. Differing from the
geotechnical documents the water pressure is applied with a limitation of 4 bar in shield axis according to
data of WIRTH GmbH.
Concerning soil properties, water pressure, non-consideration of swelling characteristics of the ground and
calculation assumptions after DAUB[3] an agreement with the responsible geological survey consultant was
not possible for ZERNA INGENIEURE. The static analysis will lose its validity, if assumptions due to soil and
water pressure are significantly changed. Hence, we explicitly advise a verification of the load assumptions
by an expert who is familiar with the relations in situ before tunneling starts.
For the main computation (Document „Static Analysis and Structural check of the Shield Construction TB
485 H-GS/EPB (Project Beoland)“) the subsequent load combinations with the following loads are used as
decisive loadings.
 Chapter 3: Loadcase 1 Earth and water pressure at km 10+650,00 (DS 3)
 Chapter 6: Operating loads
The external loads determined according to chapter 3 in combination with the loads evaluated according to
chapter 6 describe the most unfavourable load situation for the design of the shield construction.
In load case 1 and 2 of chapter 3 and 4 the outer loads are determined. Load case 1 regards the shield con-
struction loaded with earth and water pressure. According to [1] the geotechnical environment at station
10+650 is described as marly clay. Loadcase 2 considers the hydrostatical pressure of the grout for injection
of the annular gap during tunneling at the tail shield at station 10+816,07 and is characterized as a special
load case.
According to chapter 5 the load case 3 corresponds to the operating loads after Plan Nr. B0035386. This
loadcase describes a cornering of the shield structure at station 7+287,31 km whereas the shield structure
takes a curve of a radius of 200m. Hence, loads due to steering movement referring to the DAUB must be
regarded. Loadcase 3 is characterized as a special load case.
Page 5 of 18
Load cases 4-10 after chapter 6 also correspond to the operating loads and describe the “internal loads“ of
the shield structure.
The external loads evaluated in chapter 4 were used for initial sizing of the maximum loads and were not
regarded in the main computation (Document „Static Analysis and Structural check of the Shield Construc-
tion TB 485 H-GS/EPB (Project Beoland)“). In comparison to the loads of chapter 3 they were not decisive
for the further design of the of the shield structure.
The same approach keeps valid for the evaluation of the internal loads (operating loads) for the load case 3
according to chapter 5 which is pointed out as not decisive in comparison to the operating loads after chapter
6.
For initial sizing, different gelogical design sections at the following stations were analyzed:
 Station 12+482 km (Start of tunneling track BQ1 [1])

 Station 10+816,07 km (max. water level according to geotechnical longitudinal section BQ2 [1] )
 Station 7+287,31 km ( cornering with a radius of 200m according to geotechnical longitudinal section
BQ4 [1])
 Station 10+650,00 km (max. overburden according to geotechnical longitudinal section BQ3 [1] )
 Station 6+800,00 km (End of tunneling track, min. overburden; min. water pressure BQ5 [1])
Page 6 of 18
2 Parameters of the Ground and Machine
2.1 Soil parameters
According to the geotechnical data [1] the soil parameters of the different soil layers are listed in 2 different varia-
tions. The first variant of soil parameters is listed explicitly for each soil layer in such a way that the soil parame-
ters can be allocated to each corresponding soil layer (Tab. 1). The second variant combines all soil layers with
similar soil properties and approximately similar characteristic values in a geotechnical category A - E (Tab. 2).
Particulars about the definition of the categories can be taken from the geotechnical data [1].
Variant 1, as well as variant 2, shows significant scatter concerning the soil parameters. Therefore, the most unfa-
vourable soil characteristics of each soil layer out of both variants were investigated and summarized in Tab.3. In
a following step, the values out of Tab.3 were used to calculate the loads due to vertical and lateral earth pressure
at a decisive design section (max. rock overbrurden) to investigate if these corresponding loads calculated
acccording to DAUB [3] result in realistic values. The same approach was used for the avarage values of the soil
parameters from the soil category A-E. (Tab. 4).
For the final evaluation, the decisive soil parameters were investigated between the values according to Tab. 3
and the soil characteristics from the avarage values relating to the soil category A-E (Tab. 4). The corresponding
soil characteristics are summarized in Table 5. Tables 1-5 of the soil characteristics are given in the annex.
Calculation of the final proper loads due to earth pressure, which were used for the design of the shield structure,
were done with the soil characteristics given in Table 5. Aforementioned loads form the basis for the main compu-
tation (Document „Static Analysis and Structural check of the Shield Construction TB 485 H-GS/EPB (Project
Beoland)“, chapter 2.5.1).
Page 7 of 18
2.2 Machine properties
Average diameter of the shield / tail shield: 4.84m

Length of the shield approx.: 9.30m
Front shield approx.: 2.50m
Middle shield approx.: 3.30m
Tail shield approx.: 3.50m
Dead Weight approx.: 216 to (incl. installed equipment)

(futher technical data see [2])
3. Load Case 1 – Earth and Water Pressure at km 10+650,00 (BQ 3)
In this chapter the earth and water pressure is investigated at the decisive design section 3 at 10+650,00 (Design
setion with max. vertival cover ). According to DAUB [3] the vertical and lateral earth pressure is established ac-
cording to the “Silotheorie von Terzaghi”. The lateral earth pressure amounts to ksilo = 0,8. Due to the geological
conditions no building loads and traffic loads shall be estimated.
3.1 Geological cross section load case 1

see Plan Nr. 1
3.2 Evaluation of loadings for load case 1
3.2.1 Vertical stresses

Stresses due to dead load of the shield structure
G
g
l 2r
Earth pressure (ridge)
The vertical earth pressure is evaluated according to DAUB [3]
average unit weigth :

 h  h  h  h  h  h  h  h  h
m  1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
hü
Page 8 of 18
 m  (22 KN / m ³  4.34m  21.3KN / m ³  10.59m  22.3KN / m³ 11.50m  21.3KN / m³ 17.28m
 22.2 KN / m³  12.30m  12.2 KN / m ³  1.77 m  11.7 KN / m³  32.84m  12.3KN / m³  53.28m
 12 KN / m³  29.43m  12.6 KN / m ³  20.72m) / 194.05m
 14.87 KN / m ³
average friction angle:

 h  h  h  h  h  h  h  h  h
m  1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
hü
 m  (12.5  4.34m  22.5  10.59m  17.5  11.50m  18  17.28m  21  12.30m
21  1.77 m  18  32.84m  20  53.28m  12.5  29.43m  19.5  20.72m) / 194.05m
 18.2
average cohesion:
c h  c h  c h  c h  c h  c h c h c h c h
cm  1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
hü
cm  (7.5 KN / m ²  4.34m  85 KN / m ² 10.59m  80 KN / m²  11.50m  80 KN / m² 17.28m
 85 KN / m³  12.30m  85 KN / m³  1.77 m  80 KN / m³  32.84m  150 KN / m ³  53.28m  10 KN / m³  29.43m
 150 KN / m³  20.72m) / 194.05m
 95.09 KN / m²
Vertical cover : hü  194.05m

Radius of the shield: r = 2.42m
Silo width:
r 2.42m  18.2
b1    4.74m mit   45  m  45   54.1

   
 2 2
tan  tan 54.1 
2  2 
Lateral pressure coefficient: ksilo = 0.8
Vertical earth pressure:
if hü  5  b1  h1  hü and h2  0
then hü  5  b1  h1  5  b1 and h2  hü  h1
hü  194.05m  5  b1  5  4.74  23.7 m  h1  5  b1  23.7 m

h2  hü  h1  194.05  23.7  170.35m
 m  b1  c m  h
 k silo  tan  m  1  h
 k silo  tan  m 1
 v'   1  e b1    p  h    e b1
k silo  tan  m   2 m
 
Page 9 of 18
14.9  4.74  95.1  
23.7 23.7
 0.8tan 18 .2 0.8tan 18.2
  0  170.35 14.9  e
 
'

 1 e 4.74  4.74
0.8  tan18.2 
v

 v'  613.28 KN / m ²
3.2.2 Lateral stresses
Earth Pressure
The lateral earth pressure acting on the shield axis is calculated according to DAUB [3].
     
 h'   p  hü  r    m   tan 2  45   m   2  c m  tan 45   m 
 2   2 
 19.5    19.5 
 h'  0  194.05  2.42 12.6  tan 2  45    2  cm  tan 45  
 2   2 
 h'  1024.42 KN / m ²
3.2.3 Water pressure and buoyancy
The water pressure is applied hydrostatically. According to customer’s specification (WIRTH GmbH) [5] the in-situ
water pressure shall be margined to 4 bar (=40m water column) in tunnel axis.
Firste: pwh   w  hw  400 KN / m ²  2.42m 10 KN / m³  376 KN / m ²

Sohle: pwh   w  hw  400 KN / m ²  2.42m  10 KN / m³  424 KN / m²
Bouyancy of the machine

D2  w
p vA    
4 D
Stresses from buoyancy of the shield structure are not considered in the static computation.
3.2.4 Foundation modulus
The machine lies completely in a clayey and marly enviroment with tufa. Referring to [4] the compression modulus
is calculated with the following equation:
E 300
Es    643MN / m ²
1   2  2
1  0.4  2  0.4 2
1 v 1  0. 4
Foundation modulus is calculated according to [4]:
E 643
k s   266MN / m ³
r 2.42
Agreeable to DAUB [3] tangential load dues can be neglected
Page 10 of 18
3.2.5 Load case 1 (BQ 3)
Figure.1: Load case 1
Lateral loadings:
Earth presure: p hE  1024 KN / m ²
Water pressure ridge: p Wh  376 KN / m²
Water pressure bottom: p Wh  424 KN / m ²
Vertical loadings:
Earth pressure ridge: p vE  613KN / m ²
Water pressure ridge: p Wv  376 KN / m ²
Water pressure bottom: p Wv  424 KN / m ²
Page 11 of 18
4. Load Case 2 – Injection Pressure at km 10+816,07 (BQ 2)
According to customer’s specification (WIRTH GmbH) [5] the in-situ water pressure shall be margined to 4 bar in
tunnel axis. To avoid an infiltration of water into the annular gap the injection pressure must be higher than the
water pressure to grout the annular gap at the tail shield. Therefore, a safety margin of 0.25 bar is considered for
the injection pressure.
4.1 Evaluation of loadings for load case 2
4.1.1 Vertical and lateral stresses
Water pressure bottom: pwater

bottom
 400 KN / m²   w  r  400  10  2.42  424.2 KN / m ²
Hydrostatical pressure bottom: p bottom  400  10  2.42  25  449 KN / m ²
Hydrostatical pressure ridge: p ridge  pwater
ridge
 25  ( 400  24.2)  25  401KN / m²
4.1.2 Foundation modulus
The foundation modulus is established in such a manner that the shield is lying completely in clay and sand.
E  300 MN / m ³ acc. to Tab. 3

E 300
Es    643MN / m ²
1   2  2
1  0.4  2  0,.4 2
1 v 1  0.4
Foundation modulus is calculated according to [4]:
E 643
k s   266 MN / m³
r 2,42
Page 12 of 18
4.1.3 Load case 2
Figure.2: Load case 2
5. Load case 3 – Shield driving to the right at km 7+287,31 (BQ 4)
For cornering with unscheduled steering movement it is assumed that steering is initiated through the different
thrusts of the articulation cylinders.
Referring to customer’s specification (WIRTH GmbH) [6] the articulation cylinders on the interior side of the curve
will be charged with a minimum pressure of 0% and the exterior side with a maximum pressure of 100 % of the
installed artculation cylinder forces for exceptional cases. Between the interior and exterior side of the curve a
linear distribution of the artculation cylinder forces over the cross section is assumed.
5.1 Evaluation of the loadings for loadcase 3
According to customer’s specification (WIRTH GmbH) (see Plan Nr. B0035386) the steering movement
results from 8 artculation cylinders. Their maximum tensile forces or compressive forces got the following val-
ues:
FSt  8 1,800 KN (maximum compressive force)

FSt  8  450 KN (maximum tensile force)
Page 13 of 18
5.1.1 Load case 3
Figure 3: Load case 3
6. Operating Loads
After [10] the operating loads are as follows:
6.1 Loadcase 4: Thrust cylinders
The tunneling machine is pushed forward by 12 thrust cylinders:

Fv  12  2,200 KN  26,400 KN
6.2 Loadcase 5: Pressure on submerged wall
Referring to customer’s specification (WIRTH GmbH) [7] the submerged wall and the centre are to be construed
for the following pressure:
pDW  4.0bar  400 KN / m² (Height of the axis)
pDW  4.5bar  450 KN / m² (Height of the bottom)
Page 14 of 18
6.3 Load case 6: Torque support
The torque due to the cutter head is carried by 2 torsional supporting beams which are arranged on both sides.
FDMS  480 KN per side
6.4 Loadcase 7: Erector loads
Loads corresponding to the trailers will be converted to the erector support frame. Referring to [10] the loads of
the trailers and the loads of the erector are as follows:
M axial  93KNm
Fv  160 KN
Fh  2  400 KN (lateral loads of the trailer)
Fv  2  15 KN  30 KN (vertical loads of the trailer)
This leads to the following loads on the erector support frame

M axial  93KNm
M kipp  2  3.5m  15 KN  52.5 KNm
Fv1  160 KN
Fh  2  400 KN
Fv 2  2  15KN  30 KN
6.5 Load case 8: Loads of screw conveyer
The loads of the screw conveyer are as follows:

Fv  155 KN (Dead load of the screw conveyer)
Fv  30 KN (Belt conveyer)
M axial  56 KNm (Torque of the screw)
The transfer of the loads onto the 4 supporting points of the screw conveyer leads to the following loads:
Faxial  2  115 KN (Tension at the top)
Faxial  2  115 KN (Compression at the bottom)
Fv  4  46 KN
M axial  4  14 KNm
Page 15 of 18
Figure 4: Supporting points of the screw conveyer
6.6 Load case 9: Loads of cutter head (main bearing)

According to customer’s specification (WIRTH GmbH) [9] the following values shall be applied to the main bearing
of the cutter head:
Axial force Faxial  4,811KN

Radial force: Fradial  1,884 KN
Stalling torque: M kipp  5,794 KNm
7. Load Combinations
The following 2 different load combinations will be distinguished:
Load combination LK1:

 Dead weight (  F  1.35 )
 Earth pressure and water pressure (BQ 3) (  F  1.50 )
 Thrust cylinders (  F  1.35 )
 Pressure on pressure wall (  F  1.50 )
 Torque support (  F  1.35 )
 Erector loads (  F  1.50 )
 Loads of screw conveyer (  F  1.35 )
 Loads of articulation cylinders (  F  1.35 )
Page 16 of 18
 Loads of cutter head (main bearing) (  F  1.35 )
Load combination LK2:
 Dead weight (  F  1.35 )
 Injection pressure (BQ 4) (  F  1.50 )
 Thrust cylinders (  F  1.35 )
 Pressure on pressure wall (  F  1.50 )
 Torque support (  F  1.35 )
 Erector loads (  F  1.50 )
 Loads of screw conveyer (  F  1.35 )
 Loads of articulation cylinders (  F  1.35 )
 Loads of cutter head (main bearing) (  F  1.35 )
Load combinations 1 and 2 differ by the approach of the external loads.

In load combination 1 earth and water pressure are estimated as decisive external loads while the load case
combination 2, loadcase of injection pressure, is applied as decisive external load on the shield skin. Earth pres-
sue and water pressure in comparison to the injection pressure were evaluated as maximum decisive loads be-
fore. Therefore, load case 2 was neglected for the main computation.
Page 17 of 18
8. Literature
[1] Geotechnical Data: Summary Report on Geotechnical Investigations for Design of „Visnjica Tunnel“
[2] Wirth GmbH, Technical Document : Technical Data TB 485 H-GS/EPB; Project: P.001423
[3] Deutscher Ausschuss für Unterirdisches Bauen (DAUB) – Arbeitskreis Schildstatik: Empfehlungen
für statische Berechnungen von Schildvortriebsmaschinen, Tunnel 07/2005
[4] Simmer ,K.: Grundbau 1, Teubner Stuttgart, 1987
[5] Wirth GmbH: Mail of 14.05.08: Topic: Design water pressure
[6] Wirth GmbH: Mail of 26.05.08: Topic: Load assumption „ Shield driving to the right“
[7] Wirth GmbH: File note of the conference of 06.05.08: Topic: Load assumption for swelling press and
gravity wedges
[8] Wirth GmbH: Mail of 20.05.08: Topic: Building loads and traffic loads
[9] Wirth GmbH: Lastannahmen Bohrkopf Hauptlager, I0004229
[10] Wirth GmbH: TB 485 H-GS/EPB, Belastung Schild, Zg Nr. B0035386
Page 18 of 18
Soil Parameters of the Tunnelling Track
Buoyant unit Compression

Moist unit weight Friction angle Cohesion Poisson's ratio Static Young's
weight modulus
Station Soil γ φ c v modulus
γ' Es
[KN/m³] [°] [KN/m²] [-] [Mpa]
[KN/m³] [kPa]
12+482 Silt, sand and clay (Ka) 19.0 - 21.3 9.0 - 11.3 11 - 24 11 - 18 0.34 - 0.35 - -
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 19.5 - 23.1 9.5 - 13.1 11 - 19 10 - 20 0.34 - -
Silt (PRdl) - - - - - - -
Marly sandy tuffaceous clays and marls complex 21 - 22.8 11 - 12,8 11 - 30 (*) 75 - 100 (*) 0.43 - 0.47 (*) 80 - 350 (*) -
10+816,07 (LPG,L,O)
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 20.9 - 21.4 10.9 - 11.4 35 - 50 (*) 300 - 1200 (*) 0.37 - 0.38 300 -800 (*) -
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 19.5 - 23.1 9,5 - 13,1 11 - 19 10 - 20 0.34 - -
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) 20.4 - 23.6 10.4 - 13.6 14 - 35 (*) 300 - 800 (*) 0.35 - 0,36 - -
Clay and sand complex (G,P) 19.8 - 23.5 9.8 - 13.5 30 - 40 (*) 5500 (*) 0.33 - 0.42 300 - 400 (*) -
Silt (PRdl) - - - - - - -
Basaltic conglomerate complex (KG,PS) 20.70 - - - 0.37 - -
Clays and marls (G,L) 20.3 - 21.5 10.3 - 11.5 10 - 15 (*) 10 - 50 (*) 0.48 - -
Sandy clays and marls with tufa
19.5 - 22.0 41038.00 - - 0.45 - 0.47 (*) - -
powder concentrations complex (PG,L,O)
10+650,00 Marly-sandy and marls with gravels complex
20.9 - 23.8 10.9 - 13.8 17 (*) 700 - 2600 (*) 0.34 - 0.35 (*) 70 - 700 (*) -
(LPG,L,S)
Marly sandy tuffaceous clays and marls complex
21.0 - 22.8 39793.00 11 - 30 (*) 75 - 1000 (*) 0.43 - 0.47 (*) 80 - 350 -
(LPG,L,O)
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 20.9 - 21.4 10.9 - 11.4 35 - 50 (*) 300 - 1200 (*) 0.37 - 0.38 300 -800 (*) -
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 19.5 - 23.1 9.5 - 13.1 11 - 19 10 - 20 0.34 - -
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) 20.4 - 23.6 10.4 - 13.6 14 -35 (*) 300 - 800 (*) 0.35 - 0.36 - -
Silt (PRdl) - - - - - - -
Sandy to clayey silts (PGPR) - - - - - - -
7+287,31 Sandy silts (PPRt) 19.5 - 20.2 37538.00 19 - 20 7 - 15 - 150 - 250 (*) 3350 - 5400
Silts and sands (PR,Pt) 18.8 - 19.9 8.8 - 9.9 15 - 19 5-6 - - 3356 - 7092
Marly clay (LG) 19.3 - 20.1 9,3 - 10,1 - - 0,31 - 0,36 - -
Marly clays and clayey marls (GL,LG) 25.30 15.30 - - 0.33 - -
Silt (PRdl) - - - - - - -
6+800
Sandy silts (PPRt) 19.5 - 20.2 9 - 10,2 19 - 20 7 - 15 - 150 - 250 (*) 3350 - 5400
Silts and sands (PR,Pt) 18.8 - 19.9 8.8 - 9.9 15 - 19 5-6 - - 3356 - 7092
- No specifications from the soil expertise available
* Values of an old soil expertise (1994 - 1995)
Table 1: Soil parameters according to soil expertise for each soil layer

weight modulus
γ' Es
[KN/m³] [°] [KN/m²] [-] [Mpa]
[KN/m³] [kPa]
12+482 Silt, sand and clay (Ka) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Silt (PRdl) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500

19 - 22 9 - 12 20 - 30 85 - 250 0.30 - 0.35 250 - 450 -
(LPG,L,O)
10+816,07
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 20 - 23 10 - 13 15 - 35 150 - 200 0.30 - 0.40 300 - 400 -
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) 20 - 23 10 - 13 15 - 35 150 - 200 0.30 - 0.40 300 - 400 -
Clay and sand complex (G,P) 20 - 23 10 - 13 15 - 35 150 - 200 0.30 - 0.40 300 - 400 -
Silt (PRdl) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500

Basaltic conglomerate complex (KG, PS) 19 - 22 9 - 12 20 - 30 85 - 250 0.30 - 0.35 250 - 450 -
Clays and marls (G,L) 20 - 23 10 - 13 15 - 35 150 - 200 0.30 - 0.34 300 - 400 -
19 - 22 9 - 12 20 - 30 85 - 250 0.30 - 0.35 250 - 450 -
10+650,00 Marly - sandy clays and marls with gravels
19 - 22 9 - 12 20 - 30 85 - 250 0.30 - 0.35 250 - 450 -
complex (LPG,L,S)
19 - 22 9 - 12 20 - 30 85 - 250 0.30 - 0.35 250 - 450 -
(LPG,L,O)
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 20 - 23 10 - 13 15 - 35 150 - 200 0.30 - 0.40 300 - 400 -
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) - -
Silt (PRdl) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500

Sandy to clayey silts (PGPR) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
7+287,31 Sandy silts (PPRt) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Silts and sands (PR,Pt) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Marly clay (LG) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Marly clays and clayey marls (GL,LG) 20 - 23 10 - 13 15 - 35 150 - 200 0.30 - 0.40 300 - 400 -
Silt (PRdl) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500

6+800
Sandy silts (PPRt) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Silts and sands (PR,Pt) 19 - 23 9 - 13 10 - 20 10 - 20 0.3 - 0.36 - 3500 - 5500
Table 2: Soil parameters of geotechnical soil category A -E


weight modulus
γ' Es
[KN/m³] [°] [KN/m²] [-] [Mpa]
[KN/m³] [kPa]
12+482 Silt, sand and clay (Ka) 23 13 10 10 0.36 - 3500

Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 23 13 10 10 0.36 - 3500
-
Silt (PRdl) 23 13 10 5 0.36 - 3356
22.8 12.8 11 75 0.47 80 -
(LPG,L,O)
10+816,07
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 23 13 15 150 0.4 300
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) 23.6 13.6 14 150 0.4 300 -
Clay and sand complex (G,P) 23.5 13.5 15 150 0.42 300 -
Silt (PRdl) 23 13 10 5 0.36 - 3356

Basaltic conglomerate complex (KG, PS) 22 12 20 85 0.37 250 -
Clays and marls (G,L) 23 13 10 10 0.48 300 -
22 12 11 75 0.47 80 -
23.8 13.8 17 85 0.35 70 -
complex (LPG,L,S)
22.8 12.8 11 75 0.47 80 -
(LPG,L,O)
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 23 13 15 150 0.4 300 -
Silt (PRdl) 23 13 10 5 0.36 - 3356

Sandy to clayey silts (PGPR) 23 13 10 7 0.36 - 3350
7+287,31 Sandy silts (PPRt) 23 13 10 7 0.36 - 3350
Silts and sands (PR,Pt) 23 13 10 5 0.36 - 3356
Marly clay (LG) 23 13 10 10 0.36 - 3500
Marly clays and clayey marls (GL,LG) 25 15 15 150 0.4 300
Silt (PRdl) 23 13 10 5 0.36 - 3356

6+800
Sandy silts (PPRt) 23 13 10 7 0.36 - 3350
Table 3: Choice of most unfavourable soil paramters between soil expertise (Table 1) and geotechnical soil category A - E (Table 2)

weight modulus
γ' Es
[KN/m³] [°] [KN/m²] [-] [Mpa]
[KN/m³] [kPa]
12+482 Silt, sand and clay (Ka) 21 11 15 15 0.33 - 4500

Silt (PRdl) 21 11 15 10 0.33 350 -

20.5 10.5 25 85 0.325 350 -
(LPG,L,O)
10+816,07
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 21.5 11.5 25 150 0.35 - 4250
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 21 11 15 10 0.33 - -
Silt (PRdl) 21 11 15 10 0.33 - 4500

Basaltic conglomerate complex (KG, PS) 20.5 10.5 25 85 0.325 350 -
Clays and marls (G,L) 21.5 11.5 25 150 0.32 350 -
20.5 10.5 25 85 0.325 350 -
20.5 10.5 25 85 0.325 350 -
complex (LPG,L,S)
20.5 10.5 25 85 0.325 350 -
(LPG,L,O)
Marl and marly clays complex (L) 21.5 11.5 25 150 0.35 350 -
Silt (PRdl) 23 13 10 5 0.33 - 3356

7+287,31 Sandy silts (PPRt) 23 13 10 7 0.33 - 3350
Marly clay (LG) 23 13 10 10 0.33 - 3500
Marly clays and clayey marls (GL,LG) 25 15 15 150 0.35 350 -
Silt (PRdl) 21 11 15 10 0.33 - 4500

6+800
Sandy silts (PPRt) 21 11 15 10 0.33 - 4500
Table 4: Average values of soil parameters according to soil expertise for geotechnical soil category A - E

weight modulus
γ' Es
[KN/m³] [°] [KN/m²] [-] [Mpa]
[KN/m³] [kPa]
12+482 Silt, sand and clay (Ka) 22 12 12.5 12.5 0.345 - 4000
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 22 12 12.5 12.5 0.345 - 4000
Silt (PRdl) 22 12 12.5 7.5 0.345 350 -

21.65 11.65 18 80 0.3975 215 -
(LPG,L,O)
10+816,07
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 22 12 12.5 10 0.345 - 3500
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) 22.55 12.55 19.5 150 0.375 325 -
Silt (PRdl) 22 12 12.5 7.5 0.345 - 3928

Basaltic conglomerate complex (KG, PS) 21.25 11.25 22.5 85 0.3475 300 -
Clays and marls (G,L) 22.25 12.25 17.5 80 0.4 325 -
21.25 11.25 18 80 0.3975 215 -
22.15 12.15 21 85 0.3375 210 -
complex (LPG,L,S)
21.65 11.65 18 80 0.3975 215 -
(LPG,L,O)
Clay with coal inter layer complex (G,U) 22 12 12.5 10 0.345 - 4000
Clays, marly with tufa complex (LG,O) 22.55 12.55 19.5 150 0.375 350
Silt (PRdl) 23 13 10 5 0.345 - 3356

7+287,31 Sandy silts (PPRt) 23 13 10 7 0.345 - 3350
Marly clay (LG) 23 13 10 10 0.345 - 3500
Marly clays and clayey marls (GL,LG) 25 15 15 150 0.375 325 -
Silt (PRdl) 22 12 12.5 7.5 0.345 - 3928

6+800
Sandy silts (PPRt) 22 12 12.5 8.5 0.345 - 3925
Silts and sands (PR,Pt) 22 12 12.5 7.5 0.345 - 3928
Table 5: Average values of soil parameters according to soil expertise for geotechnical soil category A - E (Table 4) and most unfavourable soil parameters (Table 3)

Wirth-en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Wirth-en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wirth-en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statik / statics

WIRTH MASCHINEN- UND BOHRGERÄTE-FABRIK GmbH, Erkelenz

Authors: Dipl.-Ing. B. Stielow

Bochum, 2008-06-10 …………………………..………………………..

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 3

2 Finite Elemente Modelling............................................................................................. 5

3 Results and Interpretation........................................................................................... 16

2.1 Goals of structural design calculation

Articulation between front shield and middle shield:

2.3 Safety factors

2.4 Material properties

Table 1: Material properties as functions of plate thickness

Figure 2: Applied constitutive laws for different plate thicknesses

2.5 Boundary conditions and load assumptions

2.5.2 Elastic foundation

2.5.3 Further assumptions

FG − FA = L ⋅ ∫p max ⋅ cos (3ϕ) ⋅ r ⋅ dϕ = 440 kN (2.9)

Figure 3: Estimation of maximum base pressure

Compensation forces and moments

3.1 General remarks concerning the investigations

3.2 Design criteria

3.3 Stress verification and plastic strains under design loads

3.4 Deformations under service loads

Load case ”Shield driving to the right“

Load case ”Articulation under tension“

3.6 Screw forces at the erector support frame

Table 2: Maximum screw forces

3.7 Overall assessment

Attachment 2.2.1: Plate thicknesses – general view

Attachment 3.3.1: Reference case, vertical displacement uy [m]

Plate thicknesses – model without shield skin – from the front

Plate thicknesses – model without shield skin – from behind

Plate thicknesses – detailed view onto the erector support frame

Plate thicknesses – half model

erector support frame

Erector support frame – screw coupling

Attachment 2.2.7: Articulation in the FE-model

Material groups – general view of the model

blue: 80 < d ≤ 100 mm

with reduced Young’s modulus

Material groups – model without shield skin – from the front

Attachment 2.5.1: Soil and water pressure acting on the shield

Attachment 2.5.2: Water pressure acting on the submerged wall

Forces acting on the front shield

Moments acting on the front shield

1.8 MN · 1.35 = 2.43 MN

Forces acting on the ring girder

14.0 kNm · 1.35 = 18.9 kNm

Attachment 2.5.6: Moments acting on the ring girder

Σ 0.8 MN · 1.5 = 1.2 MN

Attachment 2.5.7: Forces acting on the erector support frame

Σ 0.105 MNm · 1.5 = 0.1575 MNm

Attachment 2.5.8: Moments acting on the erector support frame

compensation moment due to erector loads:

Radial elastic foundation

Attachment 2.5.12: “Artificial“ bearing – lengthwise deflection

Attachment 2.5.13: “Artificial” bearing – rotation around the machine axis

Attachment 3.3.1: Reference case, vertical displacement uy [m]

Attachment 3.3.2: Reference case, horizontal lengthwise displacement ux [m]