A review on the buried pipeline responses to tunneling-induced ground settlements | |
| روش های تحلیلی و عددی در مهندسی معدن | |
| دوره 13، شماره 37، دی 1402، صفحه 69-90 اصل مقاله (2.87 M) | |
| نوع مقاله: مقاله مروری | |
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/anm.2024.20501.1607 | |
| نویسندگان | |
| Hadi Mahmoudi1؛ Ghorban Khandouzi1؛ Mohammad Hossein Khosravi* 2 | |
| 1School of Mining Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | |
| 2Dept. of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran | |
| چکیده | |
| The expansion of cities and urban areas has resulted in an increased demand for environmental and economic transport and services infrastructure. Tunneling, as one of mankind's engineering underground constructions, is taking place close to buried and surface structures such as gas, water, and wastewater pipelines. This paper reviews soil-pipe interaction behavior, tunneling-induced ground settlement, governing equations of soil-pipe settlement, the effects of tunnel depth, size, soil relative density, and volume loss on vertical and horizontal displacement, settlement, shear strain, dilation, pipe bending, and gap formation. A comprehensive literature review, analysis of published papers, and investigations were conducted to study the effect of various parameters on pipeline behavior. The results were obtained by studying the effect of tunneling on ground and pipeline settlement, soil-pipe interaction mechanism, and centrifuge physical modeling. The achieved results of investigations show that the settlement profile follows a Gaussian curve with a wider settlement trough in clay compared to sand. When the tunnel and pipeline are perpendicular to each other, maximum bending strain in the pipeline occurs and the pipeline settlement is symmetrical. The friction effect and formation of contraction and expansion zones lead to the difference between soil volume loss near the surface and tunnel volume loss. When the pipe-soil relative stiffness increases, the pipe bending is less than the maximum soil bending. Also, ground settlement, shear strain, pipeline displacement, and pipeline bending are greater in flexible pipes than in rigid pipelines. This is due to the low resistance of flexible pipelines against bending and settlement caused by tunnel excavation. Positive pipeline bending (downward) occurs near the tunnel axis, which is marked by sagging, but negative bending (upward) occurs at a distance from the tunnel axis, which is known as hogging. In twin tunnels, by increasing the tunnel spacing the pipeline settlement profile changes from a V-shape to a U-shape and finally a W-shape. Understanding soil-pipe interaction behavior, tunneling-induced ground settlement, and the effects of different parameters on displacement, strain field, settlement, pipe bending, and gap formation beneath pipelines is crucial for engineers evaluating pipeline behavior. Additionally, comprehending these issues can help designers make informed decisions during tunnel construction. | |
| کلیدواژهها | |
| Urban area؛ Service infrastructures؛ Tunneling؛ Pipelines؛ Ground settlement | |
| عنوان مقاله [English] | |
| A review on the buried pipeline responses to tunneling-induced ground settlements | |
| نویسندگان [English] | |
| Hadi Mahmoudi1؛ Ghorban Khandouzi1؛ Mohammad Hossein Khosravi2 | |
| 1School of Mining Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | |
| 2Dept. of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran | |
| چکیده [English] | |
| The expansion of cities and urban areas has resulted in an increased demand for environmental and economic transport and services infrastructure. Tunneling, as one of mankind's engineering underground constructions, is taking place close to buried and surface structures such as gas, water, and wastewater pipelines. This paper reviews soil-pipe interaction behavior, tunneling-induced ground settlement, governing equations of soil-pipe settlement, the effects of tunnel depth, size, soil relative density, and volume loss on vertical and horizontal displacement, settlement, shear strain, dilation, pipe bending, and gap formation. A comprehensive literature review, analysis of published papers, and investigations were conducted to study the effect of various parameters on pipeline behavior. The results were obtained by studying the effect of tunneling on ground and pipeline settlement, soil-pipe interaction mechanism, and centrifuge physical modeling. The achieved results of investigations show that the settlement profile follows a Gaussian curve with a wider settlement trough in clay compared to sand. When the tunnel and pipeline are perpendicular to each other, maximum bending strain in the pipeline occurs and the pipeline settlement is symmetrical. The friction effect and formation of contraction and expansion zones lead to the difference between soil volume loss near the surface and tunnel volume loss. When the pipe-soil relative stiffness increases, the pipe bending is less than the maximum soil bending. Also, ground settlement, shear strain, pipeline displacement, and pipeline bending are greater in flexible pipes than in rigid pipelines. This is due to the low resistance of flexible pipelines against bending and settlement caused by tunnel excavation. Positive pipeline bending (downward) occurs near the tunnel axis, which is marked by sagging, but negative bending (upward) occurs at a distance from the tunnel axis, which is known as hogging. In twin tunnels, by increasing the tunnel spacing the pipeline settlement profile changes from a V-shape to a U-shape and finally a W-shape. Understanding soil-pipe interaction behavior, tunneling-induced ground settlement, and the effects of different parameters on displacement, strain field, settlement, pipe bending, and gap formation beneath pipelines is crucial for engineers evaluating pipeline behavior. Additionally, comprehending these issues can help designers make informed decisions during tunnel construction. | |
| کلیدواژهها [English] | |
| Urban area, Service infrastructures, Tunneling, Pipelines, Ground settlement | |
| مراجع | |
|
[1] Hasanpour, R., Schmitt, J., Ozcelik, Y., Rostami, J. 2017. Examining the effect of adverse geological conditions on jamming of a single shielded TBM in Uluabat tunnel using numerical modeling. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 9(6), pp.1112-1122.
[2] Zhao, C., Alimardani Lavasan, A., Barciaga, T., Schanz, T., 2018. Mechanized tunneling induced ground movement and its dependency on the tunnel volume loss and soil properties. The International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 43(4), pp.781–800.
[3] 3. Mirsalari, S.E., Fatehi Marji, M. Gholamnejad, J., Najafi, M. 2017. A boundary element/finite difference analysis of subsidence phenomenon due to underground structures. Journal of Mining and Environment, 8 (2), pp.237-253.
[4] 4. Zhou, H., Gao, Y., Zhang, C., Yang, F., Hu, M., Liu, H., Jiang, Y., 2018. A 3D model of coupled hydro-mechanical simulation of double shield TBM excavation. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 71, pp.1-14.
[5] 5. Abdollahi, M.S., Najafi, M., Yarahmadi Bafghi, AR., Fatehi Marji, M. 2019. A 3D numerical model to determine suitable reinforcement strategies for passing TBM through a fault zone, a case study: Safaroud water transmission tunnel, Iran. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 88, pp.186-199.
[6] 6. Lui, B., Li, T., Han, Y., Li, D., He, L., Fu, C., Zhang, G., 2022. DEM-continuum mechanics coupling simulation of cutting reinforced concrete pile by shield machine. Computers and Geotechnics, 152, p.105036.
[7] 7. Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. John wiley & Sons, Inc, New York & London, 526p.
[8] 8. Tien, H.J., 1996. A literature study of the arching effect. M.Sc. Thesis, Massachusetts institute of technology, National Taiwan University.
[9] 9. Khosravi, M.H., Bahaaddini, M., Kargar, A.R., & Pipatpongsa, T. 2018. Soil arching behind retaining walls under active translation mode: review and new insights. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering, IJMGE, 52(2), pp.131-140.
[10] 10. Khandouzi, G., Khosravi, M.H., 2023. Soil arching and ground deformation around tunnels in sandy ground, review and new insights. Journal of mining and environment, JME, https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2023.13676.2532.
[11] 11. Khosravi, M.H., Pipatpongsa, T., & Takemura, J. 2016. Theoretical analysis of earth pressure against rigid retaining walls under translation mode. Soils and Foundations, 56(4), pp.664-675.
[12] 12. Khosravi, M. H., Hamedi Azad, F., Bahaaddini, M., & Pipatpongsa, T. 2017. DEM analysis of backfilled walls subjected to active translation mode. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering, 51(2), pp.191-197.
[13] 13. Khosravi, M. H., Kargar, A. R., & Amini, M. 2020. Active earth pressures for non-planar to planar slip surfaces considering soil arching. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 14(7), pp.730-739.
[14] 14. Khosravi, M.H., Sarfaraz, H., Pipatpongsa, T. & Sharifdeljuyi, A. 2022. Active Earth Pressure Distribution inside Narrow Backfill Considering Soil-Arching Effect. International Journal of Geomechanics, 22(7), p.06022013.
[15] 15. Sarfaraz, H., Khosravi, M.H., & Pipatpongsa, T. 2023. Theoretical and Numerical Analysis of Cohesive-Frictional Backfill against Battered Retaining Wall under Active Translation Mode. International Journal of Geomechanics, 23(6), p.04023079.
[16] 16. Khosravi, M. H., Sarfaraz, H., Esmailvandi, M., & Pipatpongsa, T. 2017. A numerical analysis on the performance of counterweight balance on the stability of undercut slopes. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering, 51(1), pp.63-69.
[17] 17. Ukritchon, B., Ouch, R., Pipatpongsa, T., & Khosravi, M. H. 2018. Investigation of stability and failure mechanism of undercut slopes by three-dimensional finite element analysis. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, pp.1730-1741.
[18] 18. Sarfaraz, H., Khosravi, M. H., Pipatpongsa, T., & Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H. 2021. Application of artificial neural network for stability analysis of undercut slopes. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering, 55(1), pp.1-6.
[19] 19. Sarfaraz, H., Khosravi, M.H., Pipatpongsa, T. & Saedi, G. 2023. Estimation of passive earth pressure against a battered rigid retaining wall in cohesive-frictional backfill. Journal of Geomine, 1(1), pp.22-29.
[20] 20. Vorster, T. E. B. 2005. The effects of tunnelling on buried pipes. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University.
[21] 21. Marshall, A.M., 2009. Tunneling in sand and its effect on pipelines and piles. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 270p.
[22] 22. Vorster, T.E., Klar, A., Soga, K. and Mair, R.J., 2005. Estimating the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(11), pp.1399-1410.
[23] 23. Klar, A., Marshall, A.M., Soga, K. and Mair, R.J., 2008. Tunneling effects on jointed pipelines. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(1), pp.131-139.
[24] 24. Marshall, A.M., Klar, A. and Mair, R.J., 2010. Tunneling beneath buried pipes: view of soil strain and its effect on pipeline behavior. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(12), pp.1664-1672.
[25] 25. Wang, Y., Wang, Q. and Zhang, K.Y., 2011. An analytical model for pipe-soil-tunneling interaction. Procedia Engineering, 14, pp.3127-3135.
[26] 26. Klar, A., Elkayam, I. and Marshall, A.M., 2016. Design oriented linear-equivalent approach for evaluating the effect of tunneling on pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(1), p.04015062.
[27] 27. Shi, J., Wang, Y. and Ng, C.W., 2016. Three-dimensional centrifuge modeling of ground and pipeline response to tunnel excavation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(11), p.04016054.
[28] 28. Shi, J., Wang, Y. and Ng, C.W., 2016. Numerical parametric study of tunneling-induced joint rotation angle in jointed pipelines. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(12), pp.2058- 2071.
[29] 29. Ma, S., Shao, Y., Liu, Y., Jiang, J. and Fan, X., 2017. Responses of pipeline to side-by- side twin tunnelling at different depths: 3D centrifuge tests and numerical modelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 66, pp.157-173.
[30] 30. Shi, J., Zhang, X., Chen, L. and Chen, L., 2017. Numerical investigation of pipeline responses to tunneling-induced ground settlements in clay. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 54, pp.303-309.
[31] 31. Klar, A., 2018. Elastic continuum solution for tunneling effects on buried pipelines using Fourier expansion. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 144(9), p.04018062.
[32] 32. Lin, C., Huang, M., 2019. Tunneling-induced response of a jointed pipeline and its equivalence to a continuous structure. Soils and foundations, 59, pp.828-839.
[33] 33. Saboya, F., Jr., S. Tibana, R. M. Reis, A. D. Farfan, and C. M. D. A. R. Melo. 2020. Centrifuge and numerical modeling of moving traffic surface loads on pipelines buried in cohesionless soil. Transportation Geotechnics, 23, p.100340.
[34] 34. Guan, X., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Fu, H., An, J., 2020. Velocity and stress response and damage mechanism of three types pipelines subjected to highway tunnel blasting vibration. Engineering Failure Analysis, 118, p.104840.
[35] 35. Lin, C., Huang, M., Nadim, F., Liu, Z., 2020. Tunnelling-induced response of buried pipelines and their effects on ground settlements. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 96, p.103193.
[36] 36. Xia, Y., Jiang, N., Zhou, C., Sun, J., Luo, X., Wu, T., 2021. Dynamic behaviors of buried reinforced concrete pipelines with gasketed bell-and-spigot joints subjected to tunnel blasting vibration. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 118, p.104172.
[37] 37. Yuan, S., Feng, D., Zhang, S., Lin, R., 2022. Support pressure assessment of tunnels in the vicinity of leaking pipeline using unified upper bound limit analysis. Computer and Geotechnics, 144, p.104662.
[38] 38. Xia, G., Liao, K., He, T., He, G., Liao, D. 2023. Numerical analyses of the stress and ultimate bearing capacity for small-diameter gas pipelines under multiple-wheel heavy vehicle. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 14(4).
[39] 39. Sun, S., Rong, C., Wang, H., Cui, L. and Shi, X., 2021. The ground settlement and the existing pipeline response induced by the nonsynchronous construction of a twin-tunnel. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021, pp.1-12.
[40] 40. Marshall, A., Farrell, R., Klar, A., Mair, R., 2012. Tunnels in sands: the effect of size, depth and volume loss on Greenfield displacements. Géotechnique 62 (5), pp.385–399.
[41] 41. Zhou, B. 2014. Tunneling-induced ground displacements in sand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, 227 p.
[42] 42. Franza, A. 2016. Tunneling and its effects on piles and piled structures. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering University of Nottingham, 279 p.
[43] 43. Franza, A., Marshall, A.M., Zhou, B., 2019. Greenfield tunnelling in sands: the effects of soil density and relative depth. Géotechnique, 69 (4), pp.297–307.
[44] 44. Franza, A., Marshall, A.M., Zhou, B., Shirlaw, N., Boone, S. 2019. Greenfield tunnelling in sands: the effects of soil density and relative depth. Géotechnique, 70(7), pp.639-646.
[45] 45. Moussaei, N., Khosravi, M.H., & Hossaini, M.F. 2019. Physical modeling of tunnel induced displacement in sandy grounds. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 90, pp.19-27.
[46] 46. Moussaei, N., Khosravi, M.H., & Hossaini, M.F. 2022. Physical modeling of soil arching around shallow tunnels in sandy grounds. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering, IJMGE, 56(4), pp.413-422.
[47] 47. Khandouzi, G., & Khosravi, M.H. 2023. An analytical investigation of soil arching induced by tunneling in sandy ground. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 140, p.105242.
[48] 48. Franza, A., Marshall, A.M., 2019. Empirical and semi-analytical methods for evaluating tunneling-induced ground movements in sands. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 88, pp.47–62.
[49] 49. Lin, X.T., Chen, R.P., Wu, H.N., Cheng, H.Z., 2019. Three-dimensional stress-transfer mechanism and soil arching evolution induced by shield tunneling in sandy ground. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology. 93, p.103104.
[50] 50. Peck, B.B., 1969. Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft ground, State of the art volume. In 7th ICSMFE (Vol. 4, pp. 225-290).
[51] 51. O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M., 1982. Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction (No. Monograph).
[52] 52. Wang, Y., Wang, Q. and Zhang, K.Y., 2010. Tunneling effect on underground pipelines–a closed-form solution. Proceedings of Geotechnical Challenges in Megacities, Moscow, Russia, pp.814-819.
[53] 53. Wang, Z.X., Miu, L.C., Wang, R.R., Wang, F., Wang, X.L., 2014. Physical model tests and PFC3D modeling of soil-pipe interaction in sands during tunnelling. Chinese J. Geotech. Eng. 36 (1), pp.182–188 (in Chinese).
[54] 54. Wang, F., Du, Y.J., Yang, X., 2015. Physical modeling on ground responses to tunneling in sand considering the existence of HDPE pipes. Geotech Test. J. 38 (1), pp.85–97.
[55] 55. Jia, R.H., Yang, J.S., Ma, T., Liu, S.Y., 2009. Field monitoring and numerical analysis of shield tunneling considering existing tunnels. Chinese J. Geotech. Eng. 31 (3), pp.425–430.
[56] 56. Attewell, P.B., Yeates, J., Selby, A.R., 1986. Soil movements induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie & Son, London.
[57] 57. Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K. and Mair, R.J., 2005. Soil—pipe interaction due to tunnelling: comparison between Winkler and elastic continuum solutions. Géotechnique, 55(6), pp.461-466.
[58] 58. Klar, A., Vorster, T., Soga, K., Mair, R., 2007. Elastoplastic solution for soil-pipe-tunnel interaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (7), pp.782–792.
[59] 59. Wang, Y., Shi, J. and Ng, C.W., 2011. Numerical modeling of tunneling effect on buried pipelines. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(7), pp.1125-1137.
[60] 60. Guidelines for design steel pipe July 2001 “American lifelines alliance.
[61] 61. Klar, A. and Marshall, A.M., 2015. Linear elastic tunnel pipeline interaction: the existence and consequence of volume loss equality. Géotechnique, 65(9), pp.788-792.
[62] 62. Tsagareli, Z. V. 1965. Experimental investigation of the pressure of a loose medium on retaining walls with a vertical back face and horizontal backfill surface. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2(4), pp.197-200.
[63] 63. Khosravi, M. H., Pipatpongsa, T., Takahashi, A., & Takemura, J. 2011. Arch action over an excavated pit on a stable scarp investigated by physical model tests. Soils and foundations, 51(4), pp.723-735.
[64] 64. Khosravi, M., Tang, L., Pipatpongsa, T., Takemura, J., & Doncommul, P. 2012. Performance of counterweight balance on stability of undercut slope evaluated by physical modeling. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 6(2), pp.193-205.
[65] 65. Khosravi, M. H., Pipatpongsa, T., & Takemura, J. 2013. Experimental analysis of earth pressure against rigid retaining walls under translation mode. Géotechnique, 63(12), pp.1020-1028.
[66] 66. Salehi Alamdari, N., Khosravi, M. H., & Katebi, H. 2020. Distribution of lateral active earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall under various motion modes. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering, 54(1), pp.15-25.
[67] 67. Khatami, H.R., Deng, A., Jaksa, M., 2019. An experimental study of the active arching effect in soil using the digital image correlation technique. Computers and Geotechnics. 108, pp.183–196.
[68] 68. Khandouzi, G., Khosravi, M.H., Mahmudi, H. 2023. Experimental investigation of the relationship between tunnel volume loss and soil arching in sandy ground. The 5th International Underground Excavations Symposium, Istanbul. Pp.785-796.
[69] 69. Khosravi, M. H., Takemura, J., Pipatpongsa, T., & Amini, M. 2016. In-flight excavation of slopes with potential failure planes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(5), p.06016001.
[70] 70. Khosravi, M. H., Pipatpongsa, T., Takemura, J., & Amini, M. 2017. Influence of modeling material on undercut slope failure mechanism. Journal of Mining and Environment, 8(4), pp.645-662.
[71] 71. Song, G.Y., Marshall, A.M., 2020. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling induced ground displacements: pressure and displacement control tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 103, p.103461.
[72] 72. Nasiri, F., Khosravi, M. H., & Takemura, J. 2022. An experimental study of pile stabilized infinite slopes under in-flight pseudo-static loading. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 81(10), p.440.
[73] 73. Marshall, A.M., Elkayam, I., Klar, A. and Mair, R.J., 2010, June. Centrifuge and discrete element modelling of tunnelling effects on pipelines. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics,pp. 633-637.
[74] 74. Marshall, A.M. and Mair, R.J., 2008. Centrifuge modelling to investigate soil-structure interaction mechanisms resulting from tunnel construction beneath buried pipelines. In Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground (pp. 719-724). CRC Press.
[75] 75. Aljaberi, M., Elshesheney A., Mohamed, M., Sheehan, T., 2024. Experimental investigation into the effects of voids on the response of buried flexible pipes subjected to incrementally increasing cyclic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 176, p.108268.
|
|
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 349
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 394