Geotechnika - Fakulta stavební - Vysoké učení technické v Brně

12 th International Scientific Conference, April 20-22, 2009 Brno, Czech Republic 79Fig. 2 Longitudinal section of the tube with sectioning for numerical modellingModelling using PLAXIS softwareFig. 3 Cross section of segmental lining at line IIICNumerical modelling using PLAXIS 2D was made for the following cases:A) rigid lining without 3D influence (all in once installation), interface between segment tunnellining and rock is 0,66 – this cases is in accordance with modelling using Zurabov – Bugaevamethod,B) rigid lining with 3D influence (all in once installation), interface between segment tunnellining and rock is rigid, 3D influence is modelled using so-called β method (the steps of the loading30/70),C) coupled ring (the couplings is simulated using beam elements and interface with shear andnormal stiffness of the coupling) without 3D influence (all in once installation), interface betweensegment tunnel lining and rock is 0,66D) coupled ring (the couplings is simulated using beam elements and interface with shear andnormal stiffness of the coupling), 3D influence is modelled using so-called β method (the steps ofthe loading 30/70), interface between segment tunnel lining and rock is rigid.The material of the tunnel lining segment was modelled using material parameters of the concreteB40 (35 000 MPa), the armature (steel 10425, E = 210 000 MPa) was to the calculationimplemented using stiffness ratio E 0 /E b = 6 x area. The detailed FEM mesh in the vicinity of thetunnels is shown on the figure 3 (for the meshing was used triangular element with 16 nodes). In thetable 1 is compared bending moment at the five sections on the lining. From the table we can seegood agreement in accordance with modelling using Zurabov – Bugaeva modeling. The comparisonof the results from PLAXIS modelling is in the table 2. On the fig. 4 there are some graphicalresults from numerical modelling.