Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rehabilitation of Portal Subsidence of Heybat Sultan Twin Tunnels: Selection of Shotcrete or Geogrid Alternatives

  • Case Study
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The occurrence of karst phenomenon is one of the common problems in carbonate rocks in the presence of water. The rock masses constituting the ground surface are mostly of sedimentary types among which carbonate rocks are widely observed. It is therefore necessary to accept such a geological hazard in many projects. Some of the rehabilitation methods for karstic subsidence include grout injection, filling with concrete or shotcrete and making use of geosynthetic products. Few studies have been carried out on the application of the geosynthetic products. Limy rocks form the main lithology of a large part of the 72 km long access road tunnel designed for the Iraqi-Kurdistan. The occurrence of a karstic subsidence with a volume of about 2250 m3 in the portal of Heybat Sultan tunnels revealed the necessity of examining and selecting one of these rehabilitation methods. Concerns about the repetition of such collapses in other tunnels, especially in the 6740 m long Korek twin tunnels that is the longest tunnel of the Middle East located in the vicinity of the project, has doubled the importance of the issue. This paper aims to render an account of the use of shotcrete and geogrid to rehabilitate the subsidence of the portal of Heybat Sultan tunnels. The modeling results with the FLAC numerical finite difference code showed that the displacement amount of the host rock mass after implementing the second method would be 2.9 times less than the first method. Geogrid also reduces the axial forces exerted to the tunnel supporting system up to 43 tons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gutiérrez F, Cooper AH, Johnson KS (2008) Identification, prediction and mitigation of sinkhole hazards in evaporite karst areas. Environ Geol 53:1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0728-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li L, Tu W, Shi S, Chen J, Zhang Y (2016) Mechanism of water inrush in tunnel construction in karst area. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 7(Suppl 1):35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1181342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cui QL, Wu HN, Shen SL, Xu YS, Ye G (2015) Chinese karst geology and measures to prevent geohazards during shield tunnelling in karst region with caves. Nat Hazards 77(1):129–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1585-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alija S, Torrijo FJ, Quinta-Ferreira M (2013) Geological engineering problems associated with tunnel construction in karst rock masses: the case of Gavarres tunnel (Spain). Eng Geol 157:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Song K, Cho G, Chang S (2012) Identification, remediation, and analysis of karst sinkholes in the longest railroad tunnel in South Korea. Eng Geol 135–136:92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.02.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li S, Zhou Z, Li L, Xu Z, Zhang Q, Shi S (2013) Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels based on attribute synthetic evaluation system. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 38:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang F, Zhaob L, Linga T, Yang X (2017) Rock mass collapse mechanism of concealed karst cave beneath deep tunnel. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 91:133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.11.017

    Google Scholar 

  8. Elleboudy AM, Saleh NM, Salama AG (2017) Assessment of geogrids in gravel roads under cyclic loading. Alex Eng J 56:319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hussein MG, Meguid MA (2016) A three-dimensional finite element approach for modeling biaxial geogrid with application to geogrid-reinforced soils. Geotext Geomembr 44:295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ziegler M (2017) Application of geogrid reinforced constructions: history, recent and future developments. Procedia Eng 172:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kayadelen C, Önal T, Altay G (2018) Experimental study for pull-out load of reinforced sand soil with geogrid. Measurement 117:390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.12.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mekonnen AW, Mandal JN (2017) Behavior of bamboo–geogrid reinforced fly ash wall under applied strip load. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3:24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0105-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu Y, Bathurst RJ, Allen TM, Nelson R (2016) Physical and numerical modelling of a geogrid reinforced incremental concrete panel retaining wall. Can Geotech J 53(12):1883–1901. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Biswas A, Ansari MDA, Dash SK, Krishna AM (2015) Behavior of geogrid reinforced foundation systems supported on clay subgrades of different strength. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 1:20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-015-0023-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Allen TM, Bathurst RJ (2014) Performance of an 11 m high block-faced geogrid wall designed using the K-stiffness method. Can Geotech J 51(1):16–29. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shukla SK (2002) Geosynthetics and their applications. Thomas Telford Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shukla SK, Yin JH (2006) Fundamentals of geosynthetic engineering. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shukla SK (2012) Handbook of geosynthetic engineering, 2nd edn. ICE Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Xiao C, Han J, Zhang Z (2016) Experimental study on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading. Geotext Geomembr 44(1):81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bathurst RJ (1990) Instrumentation of geogrid-reinforced soil walls. Transp Res Rec 1277:102–111

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bathurst RJ, Benjamin DJ, Jarrett PM (1988) Laboratory study of geogrid reinforced soils walls. ASCE special publication no. 18, geosynthetics for soil improvement, pp 178–192

  22. Liu C, Yang K, Ho Y, Chang C (2012) Lessons learned from three failures on a high steep geogrid-reinforced slope. Geotext Geomembr 34:131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ali HF (1993) Field behaviour of a geogrid-reinforced slope. Geotext Geomembr 12(1):53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(93)90036-N

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Daraei A, Herki BMA, Sherwani AFH, Zare S (2018) Slope stability in swelling soils using cement grout: a case study. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 4:10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0127-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reif D, Decker K, Grasemann B, Peresson H (2012) Fracture patterns in the Zagros fold-and-thrust belt, Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Tectonophysics 576–577:46–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.07.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frehner M, Reif D, Grasemann B (2012) Mechanical versus kinematical shortening reconstructions of the Zagros High Folded Zone (Kurdistan region of Iraq). Tectonics 31:TC3002. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011TC003010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Beiniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Daraei R, Herki BMA, Sherwani AFH (2017) Study on the rapid drawdown and its effect on portal subsidence of Heybat Sultan twin tunnels in Kurdistan-Iraq. Civ Eng J 3(7):496–507

    Google Scholar 

  29. Daraei A, Zare S (2018) Effect of water content variations on critical and failure strains of rock. KSCE J Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-0592-7

    Google Scholar 

  30. Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2016) Experimental investigation of interface behaviour of different types of granular soil/geosynthetics. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2:4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0044-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Itasca Consulting Group Inc (2002) Fast lagrangian analysis continua. FLAC Ver. 4.0 user manuals

  32. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Diederichs MS, Corkum B (2008) Integration of geotechnical and structural design in tunnelling. In: Proceedings University of Minnesota 56th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Minneapolis, pp 1–53

  33. Tong J, Karakus M, Wang M, Dong C, Tang X. (2016) Shear strength characteristics of shotcrete–rock interface for a tunnel driven high rock temperature environment. Geomech Geophys Geo-energy Geo-resour 2:331–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-016-0039-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoek E (2004) Numerical modelling for shallow tunnels in weak rock. Discussion paper # 3. http://www.rocscience.com

  35. Mishra S, Rao KS, Gupta NK, Kumar A (2017) Damage to shallow tunnels under static and dynamic loading. Procedia Eng 173:1322–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lei M, Lin D, Yang W, Shi C, Peng L, Huang J (2016) Model test to investigate failure mechanism and loading characteristics of shallow-bias tunnels with small clear distance. J Cent South Univ 23:3312–3321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-016-3397-1 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sauer G, Gall V, Bauer E, Dietmaier P (1994) Design of tunnel concrete linings using limit capacity curves. In: Siriwardane, Zaman (eds) Computer methods and advances in geomechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2621–2626

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hoek E (2003) Integration of geotechnical and structural design in weak rock tunnels. http://www.rocscience.com

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, Soran University, Soran, Kurdistan, Iraq

    Ako Daraei, Bengin M. Herki & Aryan Far H. Sherwani

  2. School of Mining, Petroleum & Geophysics Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

    Shokrollah Zare

Authors
  1. Ako Daraei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bengin M. Herki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aryan Far H. Sherwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shokrollah Zare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ako Daraei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daraei, A., Herki, B.M., Sherwani, A.F.H. et al. Rehabilitation of Portal Subsidence of Heybat Sultan Twin Tunnels: Selection of Shotcrete or Geogrid Alternatives. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 4, 15 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0132-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0132-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation