Comparative study of the effects of three tunneling methods on ground movements in stiff clay

Comparative study of the effects of three tunneling methods on ground movements in stiff clay This paper interprets ground movements induced by tunnel construction, by comparing monitoring data with analytical and numerical predictions based on an assumed set of deformation parameters at the cavity boundary. By minimizing differences between the computed and measured ground movements, optimal cavity deformation parameters can then be used to characterize the performance of the tunneling process. We compare the performance of three tunnel construction methods in stiff clay: (i) closed-face excavation using an Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) tunnel boring machine; (ii) open-face shield excavation; and (iii) sequential construction using the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). The measured data were obtained from three projects in London each involving different tunnel size and depth, but all excavated through deep units of stiff London clay. The measured performance in each case is evaluated using analytical solutions, that assume linear elastic properties for an elastic half-space, and numerical simulations that use an effective stress soil model, MIT-S1, with input parameters calibrated to elemental behavior of the London Clay. Although the numerical analyses achieve better agreement with the measured data, the analytical solutions perform well and could be used in future studies. The results indicate that the closed-face tunneling provided the best control of volume loss, while open-face shield excavation caused the largest ovalization of the tunnel cavity. The proposed methodology offers a practical framework for cataloging and comparing tunnel performance in future projects. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Elsevier

Comparative study of the effects of three tunneling methods on ground movements in stiff clay

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/comparative-study-of-the-effects-of-three-tunneling-methods-on-ground-WYYdYe4vrO
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0886-7798
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.tust.2018.01.005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper interprets ground movements induced by tunnel construction, by comparing monitoring data with analytical and numerical predictions based on an assumed set of deformation parameters at the cavity boundary. By minimizing differences between the computed and measured ground movements, optimal cavity deformation parameters can then be used to characterize the performance of the tunneling process. We compare the performance of three tunnel construction methods in stiff clay: (i) closed-face excavation using an Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) tunnel boring machine; (ii) open-face shield excavation; and (iii) sequential construction using the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). The measured data were obtained from three projects in London each involving different tunnel size and depth, but all excavated through deep units of stiff London clay. The measured performance in each case is evaluated using analytical solutions, that assume linear elastic properties for an elastic half-space, and numerical simulations that use an effective stress soil model, MIT-S1, with input parameters calibrated to elemental behavior of the London Clay. Although the numerical analyses achieve better agreement with the measured data, the analytical solutions perform well and could be used in future studies. The results indicate that the closed-face tunneling provided the best control of volume loss, while open-face shield excavation caused the largest ovalization of the tunnel cavity. The proposed methodology offers a practical framework for cataloging and comparing tunnel performance in future projects.

Journal

Tunnelling and Underground Space TechnologyElsevier

Published: Apr 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off