The mechanism of hysteretic ground settlement caused by shield tunneling in mixed-face conditions

  • Ming-zhong Gao
  • Zhi-long Zhang
  • Zhi-qiang Qiu
  • Chuan Xu
  • Jian Zhao
Original Article
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Shield is used more and more widely, such as coal mine roadway, hydropower tunnel, traffic tunnel and so on. But Tunneling with a tunnel boring machine (TBM) may cause inevitable ground subsidence. Though over the world numerous researches have been conducted for surface settlement induced by TBM in soft ground, the researches of surface settlement induced by TBM in a sandy cobble stratum are limited and a comprehensive study of the mechanism of delayed settlement induced by TBM in a sandy cobble stratum is unavailable. A ground stable state or surface settlement can be determined based on real-time monitoring data for surface dynamic subsidence. Subsequently, TBM tunneling parameters can be adjusted to accommodate various geological conditions. A sand-pebble-soil matrix is a typical heterogeneous material. The macro-mechanical performance of this matrix significantly differs from any material. In a general situation with a low water level and minimal disturbance, a stratum can stabilize by itself for a long period of time. Considering the characteristics of the stratum, ground loss can be divided into two phases: immediate settlement, which tends to stabilize, and delayed settlement, which tends to occur in sand-cobble strata, where settlement develops at a much slower rate than in single-medium strata. Monitoring data is not sufficient to guide the construction in the case of delayed settlement. Cobble-soil matrix can be treated as a spatial structural system that is constituted by single granular soil, aggregates of granular soil and pebble grains. Based on Particle Flow Code in 2 Dimensions (PFC2D), the mechanical characteristics of the matrix and the TBM tunneling process were numerically simulated. Movements of the pebble grains were traced and recorded in real time. The model addressed the mechanism of surface collapse from the perspective of mesomechanics. According to the model, a matrix formed self-stabilizing arch that overlies an underground cavity seems gradually wear out with expanding the cavity and eventually penetrating to the ground surface. The law of ground movement and the formation mechanism of ground subsidence in TBM advancement were investigated. The main factors that affect surface subsidence are the speed of advancement, the underground water level and the supporting period. In the numerical analysis, the surface-loss lag was reproduced and the field monitoring data were verified. The findings of this study provide a new method for investigating ground subsidence in similar strata.

Keywords

Ground subsidence TBM Sandy cobble stratum PFC2D 

References

  1. 1.
    Meng-shu W (2014) Tunneling by TBM/shield in China: state-of-art, problems and proposals. Tunnel Construction 34(3):179–187Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belle B, Foulstone A (2015) Explosion prevention in coal mine TBM drift—an operational safety knowledge share. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 11:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zheng YL, Zhang QB, Zhao J (2016) Challenges and opportunities of using tunnel boring machines in mining. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brox D (2013) Technical considerations for TBM tunneling for mining projects. Transactions of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration 334:498–505Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aston TRC, Gilby JL, Yuen CMK (1988) A comparison of rock mass disturbance in TBM and drill and blast drivages at the Donkin Mine, Nova Scotia. International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering 6:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cigta M, Yagiz S, Ozdemir L (2001) Application of tunnel boring machines in underground mine development. IMCET, Turkey, pp 155–164Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao J (2007) Tunnelling in rocks-present technology and future challenges. In: World tunnel congress, pp 22–32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cui K, Lin W (2016) Muck problem in subway shield tunneling in sandy cobble stratum. Polish Maritime Research 23:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song L (2011) Analysis of delayed settlement of soil pressure balance shield construction in water rich sandy gravel stratum and preventive measures. Journal of Changchun Institute of Technology (Natural Science Edition) 12(1):28–30Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donnelly LJ, Culshaw MG, Bell FG (2008) Long wall mining-induced fault reactivation and delayed subsidence ground movement in British coalfields. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 41(3):301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu T, Yang T et al (2015) Mining induced strata movement and roof behavior in underground coal mine. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources 1:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chou W-I, Bobet A (2002) Predictions of ground deformations in shallow tunnels in clay. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 17:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leca E (2007) Settlements induced by tunneling in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22:119–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Do N-A, Dias D et al (2014) Three-dimensional numerical simulation of a mechanized twin tunnels in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 42:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindarloo SR, Siami-Irdemoosa E (2015) Maximum surface settlement based classification of shallow tunnels in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 49:320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ercelebi SG, Copur H, Ocak I (2011) Surface settlement predictions for Istanbul Metro tunnels excavated by EPB-TBM. Environ Earth Sci 62:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loganathan N, Poulos HG (1998) Analytical prediction for tunneling induced ground movements in clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(9):846–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fang Y, Wang J et al (2014) Impact of shield tunneling on adjacent spread foundation on sandy cobble strata. J. Mod. Transport 22(4):244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang ZX, Zhang H, Yan JY (2013) A case study on the behavior of shield tunneling in sandy cobble ground. Environ Earth Sci 69:1891–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    He C, Feng K et al (2013) Surface settlement caused by twin-parallel shield tunnelling in sandy cobble strata. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A 13(11):858–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gao M, Zhao J, Li S, Qiu Z (2016) Theoretical model of the equivalent elastic modulus of a cobblestone–soil matrix for TBM tunneling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 54:117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li T, Huan Z (2012) Meso-macro analysis of surface settlement characteristics during shield tunneling in sandy cobble ground. Rock and Soil Mechanics 33(4):1141–1160Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feng H, Yang S (2014) Tunneling by EPB shield in gravel strata: case study on line 4 of Chengdu Metro. Tunnel Construction 34(3):274–279Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gao M, Zhang R, Wang M (2013) The Mechanism of Ground subsidence induced by EPB tunneling in sand and cobble stratum. In: International conference on geotechnical and earthquake engineering, pp 447–454Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiang Y (2015) Study on delayed settlement formation induced by shield tunneling in sandy cobble strata. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering 11(1):171–177Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yazhou M (2012) Analysis and countermeasures of settlement for shield tunnelling in sand cobble stratum. Railway Construction Technology 4:65–68Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fang Y, He C et al (2017) Surface settlement prediction for EPB shield tunneling in sandy ground. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 989(8):1–11Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharghi M, Chakeri H, Ozcelik Y (2017) Investigation into the effects of two component grout properties on surface settlements. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 63:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assembly. Geotechnique 29:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Itasca Consulting Group (2004) Particle flow code in 2 dimensions (PFC2D), version 3.1. User’s manual. Itasca Consulting Group, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rowe RK, Lo KY, Kack GJ (1983) Method of estimating ground settlement above tunnels constructed in soft ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20(1):11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang Q (2009) Research of the influence of Chengdu subway to the surrounding. Southwest Jiaotong University, LeshanGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang M, Wei L, Lu J, Zhu Z (2001) Study of face stability of cobble-soil shield tunnelling at Chengdu metro. Rock and Soil Mechanics 32(1):99–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ming-zhong Gao
    • 1
  • Zhi-long Zhang
    • 1
  • Zhi-qiang Qiu
    • 1
  • Chuan Xu
    • 1
  • Jian Zhao
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resources and HydropowerSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations