ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Comparative Analysis and Safety Evaluation of Shield Segment Structure Model under Surcharge Loading.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In shield tunneling projects, the selection of an accurate model to calculate the mechanical response of segment structure plays a crucial role in the design and cost of the project. The shell-spring and beam-spring models are two widely used methods for this purpose. However, it is still not clear how accurate and different these models are in calculation results under surcharge load. Therefore, to accurately calculate the internal forces and deformation of the segment structure and clarify the difference between the two models' results, the shell-spring and beam-spring models were established based on a subway shield tunnel project in Zhengzhou city. The reliability of the models was verified by comparing and analyzing the differences in deformation results between the models and field measurements. Furthermore, the safety of the segment structure was evaluated according to the ultimate bearing capacity of the normal section. The results declare that: (1) In the shell-spring model, the internal force gradually reduces from the edges towards the center of the segment width, and the shield segment exhibits a prominent non-plane strain state. (2) The internal force of the beam-spring model is larger than that of the shell-spring model. The axial force difference between the two models is relatively small; meanwhile, there is a larger disparity in the bending moment. However, with an increase in surcharge loading, the discrepancy in internal forces between the two models gradually decreases. (3) The calculation results of the shell-spring model are close to the field-measured values and the shield tunnel model test values, which verifies the accuracy and reliability of the shell-spring model. Therefore, it is more reasonable to use the shell-spring model to calculate the mechanical response of the segment structure. (4) With an increase in surcharge loading, the safety of the shield tunnel decreases gradually. Therefore, surcharge loading above the shield tunnel should be reasonably controlled to meet the requirements of the normal use of the shield segment. This manuscript aims to provide a reference for the future design and optimization of the shield tunnels' lining structure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.