Application of Shallow Tunneling Method (STM) for Crossover Construction in Weak Soil (Case Study: Shiraz Subway)

Authors

1 Ph.D., Student, Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering,‌University of Guilan, Guilan, Iran

2 M.Sc. Grad., Technical Expert, AIC Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran

3 Instructor, Faculty Member, Transportation Research Institute, Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, Tehran, Iran.

4 B.Sc. Grad., Civil Engineering, Abbaspour College of Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Different methods have been developed and used for the excavation of tunnels. These methods generally have common points, but each of them is different in execution phase and this is the reason why they are categorized. Selection of an optimal method for tunnel excavation includes full knowledge of the tunneling methods and the parameters affecting them. Geometric characteristics, geological and geotechnical properties, project conditions and existing infrastructure, project completion time, and environmental issues are some of the important parameters which must be studied and evaluated. Also, the prediction and control of settlement in terms of safety and economic point of view has considerable importance in urban areas. In recent years, the shallow tunneling method (STM) has been used to excavating underground spaces such as metro stations and similar spaces in different soils, which have many interests in urban areas due to their lack of traffic jams. According to plan of line 2 Shiraz subway, a Crossover is constructed between the Rahmat and Dolat station in the middle of two main railways of the route. The length of the Crossover is about 136.5 m and its overburden is about 7.5 m and its diameter is about 22 m. This paper focuses on selecting the appropriate excavation method for crossover using STM method based on numerical modeling with FLAC3D software. The purposes of three-dimensional numerical modeling are evaluation of settlement during excavation, and determination of the best excavation method with the lowest settlement rate. Different methods have been investigated with different drift and sections division. Finally, two applicable methods are presented in this paper and the best method with the least settlement was introduced as the preferred option. Based on the result, maximum settlement at ground surface was 2.58 cm in the preferred option.
 
 

Keywords

References

-Brown, E.T., (1981), “Putting the NATM into perspective”. Tunnels and Tunnelling 13, pp.13–17.
-Carranza-Torres, C., Fairhust, C., (2000), “Application of the convergence-confinement method of tunnel design to rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion”. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 15, pp.187–213.
-Fang, Q., Zhang, D.L., Wong, L.N.Y., (2011), “Environmental risk management for a cross interchange subway station construction in China. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26,
pp.750–763.
-Hanhua Zhu, Mengchong Chen, Yu Zhao, Fusheng Niu, (2017), “Stability Assessment for Underground Excavations and Key Construction Techniques”, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3011-6
-Health and Safety Executive (HSE), (1996), “Safety of New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) Tunnels”, A Review of Sprayed Concrete Lined Tunnels with Particular Reference to London Clay, HSE Books.
-Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), (1996), “Sprayed Concrete Linings (NATM) for Tunnels in Soft Ground”, ICE Design and Practice Guide. Thomas Telford, London.
-Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), (1996), “Standard Specification of Tunnel (Mountain Tunneling Tunnel) and Explanation”.
-Karakus, M., Fowell, R.J., (2004), “An insight into the new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM)”. KAYAMEK02004-VII. In: Bölgesel Kaya Mekanig ˘i Sempozyumu/ ROCKMEC0 2004 – VIIth Regional Rock Mechanics Symposium, Sivas, Türkiye.
-Karakus, M., Fowell, R.J., (2005), “Back analysis for tunnelling induced ground movements and stress redistribution. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (6), pp.514–524.
-Kolymbas, D., (2005), “Tunnelling and Tunnel Mechanics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg”.
-Oreste, P.P., (2003), “Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the covergence–confinement approach”. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18,
pp.347–363.
-Powell, D.B., Sigl, O., Beveridge, J.P., (1997), “Heathrow-Express-design and performance of platform tunnels at Terminal 4”. In: Tunnelling’97. IMM, London,
pp. 565–593.
-Qian Fang, Dingli Zhang, Louis Ngai Yuen Wong, (2012), “Shallow tunnelling method (STM) for subway station construction in soft ground, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 29, pp.10–30.
-Rabcewicz, L., (1964), “The New Austrian Tunnelling Method. Part one. Water Power (November),
pp. 453–457. Part two. Water Power (December), pp.­511–515. Rabcewicz, L., 1965. The New Austrian Tunnelling Method. Part three. Water Power (January), pp. 19–24
-Sauer, G., (1988), “When an invention is something new: from practice to theory in tunnelling”. Transactions of the Institution of Mining & Metallurgy, Section A 97,
pp.94–108.
-Terzaghi, K., (1943), “Theoretical Soil Mechanics”. Wiley and Sons, New York.
-Tonon, F., Sequential Excavation, NATM and ADECO: What they have in common and how they differ. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 25, 2010, 245–265. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2009.12.004.
-Will, M., (1989), “Excavation of Large Cross Section Tunnels in Accordance with the Basic Principles of New Austrian Tunnelling Method’’ (N.A.T.M.) with Particular Regard for the use of Boom-type tunnelling Machines, World Tunnelling, April, pp. 51–55.
-Xiang, Y.Y., He, S.H., Cui, Z.J., Ma, S.Z., (2005), “A subsurface ‘‘drift and pile’’ protection scheme for the construction of a shallow metro tunnel”. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20, pp.1–5.
Journal of Transportation Research
Volume 15, Issue 4
December 2019
Pages 45-60

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics