Numerical and experimental analyses of methane leakage in shield tunnel

doi:10.1007/s11709-023-0956-z

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2023, Vol. 17

Issue (7) : 1011-1020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0956-z

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Numerical and experimental analyses of methane leakage in shield tunnel

Jie HE^1,^2,³, Hehua ZHU^1,^2,³, Xiangyang WEI^1,^2,³, Rui JIN^1,^2,³, Yaji JIAO^1,^2,³, Mei YIN^1,^2,^3,⁴(

)

¹. College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
². State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
³. Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
⁴. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brunel University, London UB8 3PH, UK

Download: PDF(7707 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Tunnels constructed in gas-bearing strata are affected by the potential leakage of harmful gases, such as methane gas. Based on the basic principles of computational fluid dynamics, a numerical analysis was performed to simulate the ventilation and diffusion of harmful gases in a shield tunnel, and the effect of ventilation airflow speed on the diffusion of harmful gases was evaluated. As the airflow speed increased from 1.8 to 5.4 m/s, the methane emission was diluted, and the methane accumulation was only observed in the area near the methane leakage channels. The influence of increased ventilation airflow velocity was dominant for the ventilation modes with two and four fans. In addition, laboratory tests on methane leakage through segment joints were performed. The results show that the leakage process can be divided into “rapid leakage” and “slight leakage”, depending on the leakage pressure and the state of joint deformation. Based on the numerical and experimental analysis results, a relationship between the safety level and the joint deformation is established, which can be used as guidelines for maintaining utility tunnels.

Keywords shield tunnel harmful gas leakage numerical analysis laboratory test

Corresponding Author(s): Mei YIN

Just Accepted Date: 29 March 2023 Online First Date: 04 September 2023 Issue Date: 20 September 2023

Cite this article:

Jie HE,Hehua ZHU,Xiangyang WEI, et al. Numerical and experimental analyses of methane leakage in shield tunnel[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(7): 1011-1020.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-023-0956-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2023/V17/I7/1011

Fig.1 Stratigraphic layer and division of shallow gas.

Fig.2 Schematic of utility tunnel.

Fig.3 Geometric characteristics of rough surfaces.

Tab.1 Parameters used in leakage rate computations

Fig.4 Schematic and computational domain of shield tunnel: (a) cross-section; (b) computational mesh of two channels; (c) computational mesh of three channels.

Fig.5 Comparison between numerical simulation and laboratory test values of leakage rate.

Fig.6 Distribution of methane concentration in tunnel with two leakage channels: (a) 1.8 m/s; (b) 3.6 m/s; (c) 5.4 m/s.

Fig.7 Distribution of methane concentration in tunnel with three leakage channels: (a) 1.8 m/s; (b) 3.6 m/s; (c) 5.4 m/s.

Fig.8 Distribution areas of methane concentration exceeding 0.25%v/v for different leakage rates (Q) and airflow velocities (v): (a) Q = 230 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 1.8 m/s; (b) Q = 390 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 1.8 m/s ; (c) Q = 550 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 1.8 m/s; (d) Q = 230 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 3.6 m/s; (e) Q = 390 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 3.6 m/s; (f) Q = 550 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 3.6 m/s ; (g) Q = 230 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 5.4 m/s; (h) Q = 390 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 5.4 m/s; (i) Q = 550 mL·min^–1·m^–1 & v = 5.4 m/s.

Tab.2 Safety levels based on methane concentration

Fig.9 Variation in methane concentration with leakage rate under ventilation conditions of different numbers of fans.

Fig.10 Schematic of gas leakage test setup: (a) test setup; (b) sealing gasket.

Tab.3 Test setup parameters

Fig.11 Test results of air leakage induced by joint deformations.

Tab.4 Joint openings and joint dislocations at different safety levels

1	F Pearson. How to avoid an explosive situation. Tunnels & Tunnelling International, 1991, 23(9): 27–29
2	R J Proctor. The San Fernando tunnel explosion, California. Engineering Geology, 2002, 67(1–2): 1–3
3	S N VlasovL V MakovskyV E Merkin. Accidents in Transportation and Subway Tunnels: Construction to Operation. Moscow: Elex-KM Publishers, 2001
4	C F C PearsonJ S EdwardsS Durucan. Methane occurrences in the Carsington Aqueduct tunnel project—A case study. In: Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference. Los Angeles: 1989: 11–14
5	W Jaffe, R Lockyer, A Howcroft. The Abbeystead explosion disaster. Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters, 1997, 10(3): 1–4
6	H Copur, M Cinar, G Okten, N Bilgin. A case study on the methane explosion in the excavation chamber of an EPB-TBM and lessons learnt including some recent accidents. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2012, 27(1): 159–167
7	X B Kang, M Xu, S Luo, Q Xia. Study on formation mechanism of gas tunnel in non-coal strata. Natural Hazards, 2013, 66(2): 291–301 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0484-y
8	M Morsali, M Rezaei. Assessment of H2S emission hazards into tunnels: The Nosoud tunnel case study from Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2017, 76(5): 227 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6493-0
9	Y Q TangW M YeQ H Zhang. Marsh gas in soft stratum at the estuary of the Yangtze river and safety measures of construction of the tunnel. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 1996, 24(4): 465–470 (in Chinese)
10	Y Q TangB Y LiuS K ZhadY Huang. Research on influence of high-pressure marsh gas on sandy silt engineering. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 2004, 32: 1316–1319 (in Chinese)
11	A Guo, L Shen, J Zhang, J Qin, X Huang, Y Wang. Analysis of influence mode of shallow gas on construction of Hangzhou Metro. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2010, 27(9): 78–81
12	A G Guo, L W Kong, L C Shen, J R Zhang, Y Wang, J S Qin, X F Huang. Study of disaster countermeasures of shallow gas in metro construction. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2013, 34(3): 769–775
13	J K Du. Analysis on the leaking process of toxic gases from chemical accidents and determination of the risky area. China Safety Science Journal, 2002, 12(6): 55–59
14	M Luo Ai, L J Wei. Numerical method of safety distance for poisonous dense gaseous leakage. China Safety Science Journal, 2005, 15(8): 98–100
15	P Li, Y F Ding, P F Weng. Study on leakage and dispersion of dangerous materials in highway tunnel. China Safety Science Journal, 2004, 14(10): 5
16	D D Wang, L Mao, J F Li. On the application of FLUENT to the dispersion of poisonous gases in highway tunnels. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2008, 8(2): 140–143
17	M T Parra, J M Villafruela, F Castro, C Mendez. Numerical and experimental analysis of different ventilation systems in deep mines. Building and Environment, 2006, 41(2): 87–93 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.01.002
18	A P Sasmito, E Birgersson, H C Ly, A S Mujumdar. Some approaches to improve ventilation system in underground coal mines environment—A computational fluid dynamic study. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2013, 34: 82–95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.09.006
19	F E Camelli, G Byrne, R Löhner. Modeling subway air flow using CFD. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2014, 43: 20–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.02.012
20	A Amouzandeh, M Zeiml, R Lackner. Real-scale CFD simulations of fire in single-and double-track railway tunnels of arched and rectangular shape under different ventilation conditions. Engineering Structures, 2014, 77: 193–206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.027
21	N Wei, L Li, C Y Wang. Analysis of harmful gases concentration variation in tunneling ventilation. Journal of China Three Gorges University, 2006, 28(4): 324–327
22	X B Kang, R Ding, M Xu, S J Zhao. Numerical simulation for the ventilation in the construction of high gas tunnel. Journal of Chengdu University of Technology (Science & Technology Edition), 2012, 39(03): 311–316
23	J C Kurnia, A P Sasmito, A S Mujumdar. CFD simulation of methane dispersion and innovative methane management in underground mining faces. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2014, 38(14): 3467–3484 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.11.067
24	Y Fang, J Fan, B Kenneally, M Mooney. Air flow behavior and gas dispersion in the recirculation ventilation system of a twin-tunnel construction. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 58: 30–39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.04.006
25	Y Fang, Z Yao, S Lei. Air flow and gas dispersion in the forced ventilation of a road tunnel during construction. Underground Space, 2019, 4(2): 168–179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.07.002
26	C Li, Y Zhao, D Ai, Q Wang, Z Peng, Y Li. Multi-component LBM-LES model of the air and methane flow in tunnels and its validation. Physica A, 2020, 553: 124279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.124279
27	H N Wu, R Q Huang, W J Sun, S L Shen, Y S Xu, Y B Liu, S J Du. Leaking behavior of shield tunnels under the Huangpu River of Shanghai with induced hazards. Natural Hazards, 2014, 70(2): 1115–1132 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0863-z
28	J Wu, Z Liu, S Yuan, J Cai, X Hu. Source term estimation of natural gas leakage in utility tunnel by combining CFD and Bayesian inference method. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 68: 104328 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104328
29	X Ren, C Wu, P Zhou. Gas sealing performance study of rough surface. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2010, 46(16): 176–181 https://doi.org/10.3901/JME.2010.16.176
30	N Patir, H S Cheng. An average flow model for determining effects of three-dimensional roughness on partial hydrodynamic lubrication. Journal of Tribology, 1978, 100(1): 12–17

[1]	Xiaojing GAO, Pengfei LI, Mingju ZHANG, Haifeng WANG, Zenghui LIU, Ziqi JIA. Analytical algorithms of compressive bending capacity of bolted circumferential joint in metro shield tunnels[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(6): 901-914.
[2]	Huai-Na WU, Lei LIU, Yuan LIU, Ren-Peng CHEN, Hai-Lin WANG, Shi-Qiang RUAN, Meng FAN. Weakening behavior of waterproof performance in joints of shield tunnels under adjacent constructions[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(6): 884-900.
[3]	Shimin WANG, Xiaoyu PENG, Hang ZHOU, Xuhu HE, Anqi ZHOU, Bing CHEN. Deformation control criterion of shield tunnel under lateral relaxation of soft soil[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(5): 780-795.
[4]	Jiujiang WU, Lingjuan WANG, Qiangong CHENG. Numerical modeling of current-induced scour around multi-wall foundation using large-eddy simulation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(4): 546-565.
[5]	Fengwei YANG, Weilin SU, Yi YANG, Zhiguo CAO. Analysis of load and adaptability of disc cutters during shield tunneling in soft–hard varied strata[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(4): 533-545.
[6]	Shaojun ZHU, Zhangjianing CHENG, Chaozhong ZHANG, Xiaonong GUO. Numerical analysis of aluminum alloy reticulated shells with gusset joints under fire conditions[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(3): 448-466.
[7]	Xiang LIU, Qian FANG, Annan JIANG, Dingli ZHANG, Jianye LI. Discontinuous mechanical behaviors of existing shield tunnel with stiffness reduction at longitudinal joints[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(1): 37-52.
[8]	Teng WANG, Dajun YUAN, Dalong JIN, Xinggao LI. Experimental study on slurry-induced fracturing during shield tunneling[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 333-345.
[9]	Huayang LEI, Yajie ZHANG, Yao HU, Yingnan LIU. Model test and discrete element method simulation of shield tunneling face stability in transparent clay[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 147-166.
[10]	Peng DENG, Boyi YANG, Xiulong CHEN, Yan LIU. Experimental and numerical investigations of the compressive behavior of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer-strengthened tubular steel T-joints[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1215-1231.
[11]	Mohammad Abubakar NAVEED, Zulfiqar ALI, Abdul QADIR, Umar Naveed LATIF, Saad HAMID, Umar SARWAR. Geotechnical forensic investigation of a slope failure on silty clay soil—A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 501-517.
[12]	Renpeng CHEN, Pin ZHANG, Huaina WU, Zhiteng WANG, Zhiquan ZHONG. Prediction of shield tunneling-induced ground settlement using machine learning techniques[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1363-1378.
[13]	Shaochun WANG, Xi JIANG, Yun BAI. The influence of hand hole on the ultimate strength and crack pattern of shield tunnel segment joints by scaled model test[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1200-1213.
[14]	Yaqiong WANG, Yunxiao XIN, Yongli XIE, Jie LI, Zhifeng WANG. Investigation of mechanical performance of prestressed steel arch in tunnel[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(3): 360-367.
[15]	Huaina WU, Yeshuang XU, Shui-long SHEN, Jin-chun CHAI. Long-term settlement behavior of ground around shield tunnel due to leakage of water in soft deposit of Shanghai[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(2): 194-198.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed