4.6 Article

A variationally consistent hyperstatic reaction method for tunnel lining design

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nag.3288

Keywords

consistent linearization; FEM; hyperstatic reaction method; lining design

Funding

  1. National Foundation for Science andTechnology Development [702874]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [105.08-2018.310]
  3. [77309832]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This technical note presents a consistent finite element formulation for tunnel linings design by introducing a variational consistently linearized formulation to consider nonlinear interaction between lining structure and ground. The proposed VHRM model allows for more efficient solution of nonlinear system equations and is applicable for various types of finite elements.
In this technical note, a consistent finite element formulation of the Hyperstatic Reaction Method (HRM) for tunnel linings design is proposed by introducing a variational consistently linearized formulation. It permits to consider a nonlinear interaction between a lining structure and the surrounding ground. Recent advances of the HRM in regard to the consideration of the nonlinear response of the segmented tunnel lining exposed to design loads use an iterative algorithm for solving the nonlinear system of equations. In the proposed Variationally consistent Hyperstatic Reaction Method (VHRM), a distributed nonlinear spring model representing the interaction between the lining and the ground soils is considered in a variationally consistent format. Computing the tangential spring stiffness via consistent linearization, and using Newton-Raphson iteration, requires significantly smaller number of iterations as compared to the original HRM model based on nodal springs. Furthermore, the method is applicable for simulations using solid finite elements (2D and 3D), as well as beam or finite shell elements, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available