Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-968

2018 Impact Factor: 1.272

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2023, Vol. 17 Issue (11) : 1723-1738    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0948-z
Drainage design combining drain holes and pinholes for tunnel boring machine segments subject to high water pressure
Yao LU1, Ming HUANG1(), Zhijie CHEN1, Zisheng ZENG1, Yuchuan LIU1, Guangzhao DU2
1. College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
2. Urban Rail Branch, China Railway 11th Bureau Group Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430071, China
 Download: PDF(12281 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Balance of the groundwater and ecology is crucial for controlled discharge. However, regarding the segments of tunnel boring machines (TBMs) under high water pressure, the stability of the lining structure is often reduced by excessive drain holes required to achieve this balance. The large discharge of pinholes can easily have severe consequences, such as the lowering of the groundwater table, drying of springs, and vegetation wilting. Thus, in this study, according to the fluid–structure coupling theory, a new drainage design for TBM segments was developed by considering a mountain tunnel subject to a high water pressure as a case study. The evolution characteristics, including the external water pressure of the lining, discharge volume of the segment, and groundwater-table drawdown, were investigated via numerical modeling with drain holes and pinholes. The results indicated that the optimal design parameters of drainage segments for the project case were as follows: a circumferential spacing angle and longitudinal number on one side of a single ring of 51° and 2, respectively, for the drain holes and an inclination angle and length of 46.41° and 0.25 times the grouting thickness, respectively, for the pin holes.
Keywords TBM segment      high water pressure      drain hole      pinhole      groundwater table drawdown     
Corresponding Author(s): Ming HUANG   
Just Accepted Date: 31 October 2023   Online First Date: 08 January 2024    Issue Date: 24 January 2024
 Cite this article:   
Yao LU,Ming HUANG,Zhijie CHEN, et al. Drainage design combining drain holes and pinholes for tunnel boring machine segments subject to high water pressure[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(11): 1723-1738.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-023-0948-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2023/V17/I11/1723
Fig.1  Interaction between tunnel engineering and the groundwater environment.
Fig.2  (a) Single-hole drainage type; (b) double-hole drainage type; (c) triple-hole drainage type; (d) inner drain system of multi-hole drainage types; (e) pinhole drainage type.
Fig.3  Design flowchart for the new type of drainage segment.
Fig.4  Engineering conditions of the case study: (a) mountain tunnel under high water pressure; (b) TBM segments and waterproofing of the joint; (c) detailed dimensions of the segmental lining (unit: mm).
Fig.5  Numerical model: (a) meshing of the partial model; (b) schematic of the overall model; (c) meshing of the segment and holes.
item density, ρ (kg/m3) elastic modulus, E (GPa) Poisson ratio, μ cohesion, c (kPa) friction angle, φ (° ) permeability coefficient, k (m/s) porosity, n
fault fracture zone 2000 35.0 0.2 35 35 1 × 10−5 0.2
grouting ring 2500 4.0 0.2 45 45 1 × 10−7 0.5
segment 2500 35.5 0.2 – – 1 × 10−12 0.01
drain holes/pinholes 2500 35.5 0.2 – – 0.2 1.5
Tab.1  Parameter values
Fig.6  Effect of the relative thickness of radial grouting on the seepage field. (a) Water inflow Qf of tunnel face; (b) external water pressure P of arch crown.
Fig.7  (a) Arrangement of two segments along the longitudinal direction (ny = 2, nθ = 1); (b) η–y curves under different ny values (θh = 45°).
Fig.8  η–θ curves for different ny values (θh = 45°). (a) Circumferential joints between rings; (b) drain holes.
Fig.9  η–θ curves for different nθ values (ny = 2, y = 1.8 m).
Fig.10  η–θ curves for different pinhole types (y = 1.8 m). (a) θdh = 30°; (b) θdh = 45°; (c) θdh = 60°; (d) θdh = 75°.
nθ ny = 1 ny = 2 ny = 3
1 2.0736 1.5120 1.1232
2 2.1168 1.5304 1.1306
3 2.1312 1.5375 1.1322
Tab.2  Average discharge volume per hole of the segment for different drainage types (m3/d)
Fig.11  Discharge volumes for different ny and nθ values.
Fig.12  Discharge volumes for different Ldh and θdh values.
nθ ny = 1 ny = 2 ny = 3
1 0.1883 0.2816 0.3245
2 0.4100 0.5723 0.6491
3 0.5405 0.7785 0.8851
Tab.3  Groundwater-table drawdown for different ny and nθ values (m)
Ldh θdh = 30° θdh = 45° θdh = 60° θdh = 75°
0.25dg 0.677 0.716 0.757 0.750
0.50dg 1.000 1.043 1.069 1.058
0.75dg 1.655 1.706 1.724 1.718
Tab.4  Groundwater-table drawdown for different Ldh and θdh values (m)
ny θ/180° Q/Qlim λ
2 0.7009 0.7380 0.9497
3 0.7344 0.8152 0.9009
Tab.5  λ values at ny = 2 and 3 (?θh = 45°)
Fig.13  β–θ curves of pinholes for different Ldh values.
Fig.14  η–θ curves for different pinhole designs.
parameter θdh0.25=46.41° θdh0.50=49.22° θdh0.75=52.03°
θ/180° 0.4333 0.4703 0.5006
Q/Qlim 0.6290 0.9124 1.5552
λ 0.6889 0.5155 0.3219
Tab.6  λ values for three optimized designs of pinholes
ny nθ = 1 nθ = 2 (?θh = 90°) nθ = 3 (?θh = 45°)
1 11.94 29.80 81.13
2 29.84 66.20 126.16
3 35.01 78.01 132.19
Tab.7  Total pressure-reducing angles under different design parameters of drain holes (° )
drain type range angle (° ) nθ ?θh (° ) κ
ny = 1 ny = 2 ny = 3
standard type 180 3 45 –0.0308 0.1528 0.2209
Design A 102 2 51 – reasonable –
Design B 102 3 34 reasonable – –
Tab.8  Table for the design types of drain holes
Fig.15  η–θ curves of the trial-hole drainage segment for different ny values (?θh = 45°).
new type θ/180° Q/Qlim λ
Design A 1 0.8225 1.2158
Design B 1 0.9262 1.0797
Tab.9  λ values of Designs A and B
Fig.16  New combined drainage types (A and B) of TBM segments. (a) Design A; (d) Design B.
Fig.17  η–θ curves of Designs A and B (?θh = 45°).
1 J LiuD Liu K Song. Evaluation of the influence caused by tunnel construction on groundwater environment: A case study of tongluoshan tunnel, China. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2015: 149265
2 G F Wang, Y X Wu, L H Lu, G Li, J S Shen. Investigation of the geological and hydrogeological environment with relation to metro system construction in Jinan, China. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2019, 78(2): 1005–1024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1140-2
3 S Chen, H Y Peng, C Yang, B L Chen, L C Chen. Investigation of the impacts of tunnel excavation on karst groundwater and dependent geo-environment using hydrological observation and numerical simulation: A case from karst anticline mountains of southeastern Sichuan Basin, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2021, 28(30): 40203–40216
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13919-1
4 F Mossmark, K K Annertz, L O Ericsson, M Norin. Hydrochemical impact of construction of the western section of the Hallandsås rail tunnel in Sweden. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2017, 76(2): 751–769
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0962-7
5 P Cheng, L H Zhao, Z B Luo, L Li, Q Li, X Deng, W Q Peng. Analytical solution for the limiting drainage of a mountain tunnel based on area-well theory. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 84: 22–30
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.014
6 J Y YuS S GeL C HouY T ZhangY Z Liu. Limit drainage of separated tunnel based on ecological groundwater table: A case study. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021: 2669924
7 C Gokdemir, Y Rubin, X J Li, H Xu. A vulnerability assessment method to evaluate the impact of tunnel drainage on terrestrial vegetation under various atmospheric and climatic conditions. Advances in Water Resources, 2021, 147: 103796
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2020.103796
8 Y X Lv, Y J Jiang, W Hu, M Cao, Y Mao. A review of the effects of tunnel excavation on the hydrology, ecology, and environment in karst areas: Current status, challenges, and perspectives. Journal of Hydrology, 2020, 586: 124891
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124891
9 S Lee, J S Moon. Excessive groundwater inflow during TBM tunneling in limestone formation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 96: 103217
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103217
10 A Aalianvari, H Katibeh, M Sharifzadeh. Application of fuzzy Delphi AHP method for the estimation and classification of Ghomrud tunnel from groundwater flow hazard. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2012, 5(2): 275–284
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0172-8
11 P Gattinoni, L Scesi. The groundwater rise in the urban area of Milan (Italy) and its interactions with underground structures and infrastructures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2017, 62: 103–114
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.001
12 L Colombo, P Gattinoni, L Scesi. Stochastic modelling of groundwater flow for hazard assessment along the underground infrastructures in Milan (northern Italy). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 79: 110–120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.05.007
13 Z Zhou, J J Zhang, C J Gong. Automatic detection method of tunnel lining multi-defects via an enhanced You Only Look Once v4 network. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2022, 37(6): 762–780
https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12836
14 P Cheng, L H Zhao, L Li, J F Zou, W Luo. Limiting drainage criterion for groundwater of mountain tunnel. Journal of Central South University, 2014, 21(12): 4660–4668
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-014-2474-6
15 B Liu, Y X Wang, G Z Zhao, B Yang, R R Wang, D X Huang, B Xiang. Intelligent decision method for main control parameters of tunnel boring machine based on multi-objective optimization of excavation efficiency and cost. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 116: 104054
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104054
16 Z H Xu, W Y Wang, P Lin, L C Nie, J Wu, Z M Li. Hard-rock TBM jamming subject to adverse geological conditions: Influencing factor, hazard mode and a case study of Gaoligongshan Tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 108: 103683
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103683
17 H S Shin, D J Youn, S E Chae, J H Shin. Effective control of pore water pressures on tunnel linings using pin-hole drain method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2009, 24(5): 555–561
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2009.02.006
18 D R Kim, H J Kim, J H Shin. Performance evaluation of pin-holed pipe anchor for fractured zone in subsea tunnel. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 2017, 35(6): 769–779
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2016.1240274
19 Z J Zhang, C P Zeng, H Li, Y Gao, L Gong, Y X Li, H F Liang, E Z Zhang. Optimal design of the seepage control for Xianglushan diversion tunnel under high external water pressure. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2022, 40(9): 4595–4615
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02173-y
20 Q X YanT T MaF Chen. Study of influence of water discharge volume on lining external loads for discharge segment lining. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2011, 32(4): 1108−1112 (in Chinese)
21 Q X YanX ChengJ ZhengC He. Analysis on fluid−structure interaction of drainage segment lining under different drainage schemes. Journal of the China Railway Society, 2012, 34(6): 95−100 (in Chinese)
22 Q X YanM ZhangX Cheng. Study of model test for water pressure distribution character behind drainage segment lining. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2013, 32(S1): 2617−2623 (in Chinese)
23 C Qi. Study on mechanical characteristics of segmental lining structure for deep-buried inclined shaft constructed by shield. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University, 2017 (in Chinese)
24 A Afshani, W Li, S Oka, Y Itoh, H Akagi. Study of the long-term behavior of segmented tunnels in cohesive soil based on the circumferential joint opening. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2022, 120: 104210
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104210
25 50164-2011 GB. Chinese Standard for Quality Control of Concrete. Beijing: China Architecture Publishing & Media Co., Ltd., 2011, 9−10
26 P F Li, F Wang, Y Y Long, X Zhao. Investigation of steady water inflow into a subsea grouted tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 80: 92–102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.003
27 L Y Li, J S Yang, L C Wang, S Y Wang, X H Fang, Y P Xie. Cause analysis and treatment measures of the inverted arch heaving disease of a high-speed railway tunnel under heavy rainfall. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2021, 58(1): 27–36
28 T C Zhao, T R Han, G Wu, Y Gao, Y Lu. Effects of grouting in reducing excessive tunnel lining deformation: Field experiment and numerical modelling using material point method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 116: 104114
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104114
29 O Arnau, C Molins. Theoretical and numerical analysis of the three-dimensional response of segmental tunnel linings subjected to localized loads. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2015, 49: 384–399
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.05.012
30 S C Wang, X Jiang, Y Bai. The influence of hand hole on the ultimate strength and crack pattern of shield tunnel segment joints by scaled model test. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(5): 1200–1213
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0546-2
31 C J Gong, Y Y Wang, Y C Peng, W Q Ding, M F Lei, Z Da, C H Shi. Three-dimensional coupled hydromechanical analysis of localized joint leakage in segmental tunnel linings. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2022, 130: 104726
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2022.104726
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed