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 (8) : 1249-1263    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0974-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Large-scale model test study on the water pressure resistance of construction joints of karst tunnel linings
Meng HUANG1, Mingli HUANG1(), Ze YANG2, Yuan SONG3, Zhien ZHANG1
1. School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
2. Enterprise Key Laboratory, Tianjin Municipal Engineering Design and Research Institute, Tianjin 300392, China
3. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan 232001, China
 Download: PDF(7341 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Model tests and numerical calculations were adopted based on the New Yuanliangshan tunnel project to investigate the water pressure resistance of lining construction joints in high-pressure and water-rich karst tunnels. A large-scale model test was designed and conducted, innovatively transforming the external water pressure of the lining construction joint into internal water pressure. The effects of the embedded position and waterstop type on the water pressure resistance of the construction joint were analyzed, and the reliability of the model test was verified via numerical calculations. The results show that using waterstops can significantly improve the water pressure resistance of lining construction joints. The water pressure resistance of the lining construction joint is positively correlated with the lining thickness and embedded depth of the waterstop. In addition, the type of waterstop significantly influences the water pressure resistance of lining construction joints. The test results show that the water pressure resistance of the embedded transverse reinforced waterstop is similar to that of the steel plate waterstop, and both have more advantages than the rubber waterstop. The water pressure resistance of the construction joint determined via numerical calculations is similar to the model test results, indicating that the model test results have high accuracy and reliability. This study provides a reference for similar projects and has wide applications.
Keywords karst tunnel      lining construction joint      water pressure resistance      large-scale model test      numerical calculations     
Corresponding Author(s): Mingli HUANG   
About author:

Peng Lei and Charity Ngina Mwangi contributed equally to this work.
Just Accepted Date: 10 May 2023   Online First Date: 13 October 2023    Issue Date: 16 November 2023
 Cite this article:   
Meng HUANG,Mingli HUANG,Ze YANG, et al. Large-scale model test study on the water pressure resistance of construction joints of karst tunnel linings[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(8): 1249-1263.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-023-0974-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2023/V17/I8/1249
initial setting time (min) final setting time (min) stability of cement compressive strength (MPa) bending strength (MPa)
3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d
150 200 qualified 26.6 47.7 4.7 7.6
Tab.1  Physical and mechanical properties of Portland cement
Fig.1  Particle size distribution of aggregate.
test item value regulatory standard (GB 5749-2022)
total dissolved solids (mg/L) 405 < 1000
Cl (mg/L) 94 250
Fe (mg/L) 0.020 < 0.3
Al (mg/L) 0.0020 < 0.2
Mn (mg/L) 0.0031 < 0.1
pH value 7.36 6.5–8.5
Tab.2  Quality test for potable water
water (g) cement (g) aggregate (g) HRWR (g)
fine coarse
760 1440 2680 4480 10.08
Tab.3  Mix identification and ratio of cube specimens
Fig.2  Location relationship between existing and new lines.
Fig.3  Geological profile of the New Yuanliangshan Tunnel.
Fig.4  Support structure design and expanded excavation process of the New Yuanliangshan Tunnel.
Fig.5  Schematic of internal and external water pressure loads.
Fig.6  Secondary lining structure of tunnel in karst cave section (unit: mm). (a) K3.0 type lining; (b) type Ⅲ construction joint (circumferential).
specimen number type and buried depth of waterstop (cm)
1 steel plate waterstop (30)
2 no waterstop (60)
3 rubber waterstop (60)
4 steel plate waterstop (60)
5 steel plate waterstop (80)
6 transverse reinforced waterstop (30)
Tab.4  Analysis of water pressure resistance of specimens
Fig.7  Process of constructing experimental model (unit: cm). (a) Mold for pouring; (b) concrete pouring at the lower part of the specimen; (c) pouring of upper part of the specimen; (d) pouring completed of the specimen; (e) schematic diagram of the specimen.
Fig.8  Test model. (a) Buried depth: 30 cm (steel plate waterstop); (b) buried depth: 60 cm (no waterstop); (c) buried depth: 60 cm (rubber waterstop); (d) buried depth: 60 cm (steel plate waterstop); (e) buried depth: 80 cm (steel plate waterstop); (f) buried depth: 30 cm (transverse reinforced waterstop).
Fig.9  Schematic of hydraulic pump station.
Fig.10  Hydraulic pump used on site.
Fig.11  Schematic of the closed system of model test (unit: cm). (a) Buried depth: 30 cm (steel plate waterstop); (b) buried depth: 60 cm (steel plate waterstop); (c) buried depth: 80 cm (rubber waterstop); (d) buried depth: 60 cm (no waterstop); (e) buried depth: 60 cm (rubber waterstop); (f) buried depth: 30 cm (transverse reinforced waterstop).
Fig.12  Pressurization process of model test. (a) Put in pressurized pipe (in pouring); (b) connect hydraulic pump station; (c) test reading.
Fig.13  Schematic of establishment of simplified numerical model. (a) Schematic of karst water pressure acting on the back of lining; (b) schematic of lining subjected to internal water pressure; (c) schematic of hydraulic test model of lining construction joint (unit: cm); (d) schematic of numerical calculation model.
Fig.14  Numerical calculation model.
Fig.15  Calculation models under two working conditions. (a) No waterstop; (b) buried depth of waterstop: 30 cm.
Fig.16  Schematic of numerical calculation model. (a) No waterstop; (b) buried depth of waterstop: 30 cm.
parameter C40 concrete steel plate waterstop rubber waterstop construction joint surface of waterstop contact
elastic modulus (MPa) 32500 200000 10000 10000 10000
compressive strength (MPa) 40 200000 30 5 20
tension–compression ratio 10 1 1 10 10
percentage of residual strength (%) 0.1 1 1 0.1 0.1
permeability coefficient (m/d) 0.01 0.000000001 0.0001 0.1 0.1
homogeneity 100 100 100 10 10
Tab.5  Mechanical and seepage parameters for numerical calculations
test condition pressure (MPa) stabilizing time (min) seepage condition
1 0.5 30 No seepage occurs.
2 1.0 30 No seepage occurs.
3 1.5 30 Seepage point #1 appears.
4 2.0 30 The penetration distance of seepage point #1 is increased.
5 2.5 30 The distance of seepage point #1 is increased, and seepage point #2 appears.
6 3.0 30 The seepage distances of seepage points #1 and #2 increase.
7 3.5 30 Seepage point #2 accelerates seepage, and distance of seepage point #1 increases.
8 4.0 30 Seepage points #1 and #2 are about to be penetrated.
9 4.5 30 Seepage points #1 and #2 have been penetrated.
10 5.0 30 When the pressure is increased to 5.0 MPa, there is no phenomenon that the seepage velocity of the crack is accelerated, and the leakage is stable.
Tab.6  Records of test process
Fig.17  Relationship between applied pressure and permeability.
Fig.18  Seepage of test specimen at 1.5 MPa.
Fig.19  Leakage of test specimens. (a) Buried depth: 60 cm (no waterstop); (b) buried depth: 60 cm (rubber waterstop); (c) buried depth: 60 cm (steel plate waterstop).
specimen number type and buried depth of waterstop (cm) pressure of model test (MPa)
1 steel plate waterstop (30) 1.5
2 no waterstop (60) 1.0
3 rubber waterstop (60) 2.1
4 steel plate waterstop (60) 4.0
5 steel plate waterstop (80) > 6.0
6 transverse reinforced waterstop (30) 1.5
Tab.7  Summary of water pressure resistance of test specimens
working condition numerical calculation results large-scale model test results
no waterstop 1.0 1.0
buried depth of waterstop: 30 cm 1.4 1.5
Tab.8  Water pressure resistance of construction joints obtained via numerical calculations
Fig.20  Contour of maximum principal stress and acoustic emission (no waterstop). (a) Contour of maximum principal stress, Step 11, σmax = 1.0 MPa (water pressure); (b) acoustic emission, Step 11.
Fig.21  Contour of maximum principal stress and acoustic emission (buried depth of waterstop: 30 cm). (a) Contour of maximum principal stress, Step 5, σmax = 1.2 MPa (water pressure); (b) contour of maximum principal stress, Step 9, σmax = 1.4 MPa (water pressure); (c) contour of maximum principal stress, Step 20, σmax = 1.95 MPa (water pressure); (d) acoustic emission, Step 5; (e) acoustic emission, Step 9; (f) acoustic emission, Step 20.
1 Y Liu, Y N Feng, M Xu, Y Zhang, H Long, H Zhu. Effect of an incremental change in external water pressure on tunnel lining: A case study from the Tongxi karst tunnel. Natural Hazards, 2019, 98(2): 343–377
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03692-3
2 C Gong, W Ding, K Soga, K M Mosalam. Failure mechanism of joint waterproofing in precast segmental tunnel linings. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 84: 334–352
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.11.003
3 F Y Wang, H W Huang. Theoretical analysis of the joint leakage in shield tunnel considering the typical deformation mode. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2020, 20(12): 04020218
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001861
4 G L Zhang, W J Zhang, H L Li, W Z Cao, B D Wang, W S Guo, P Gao. Waterproofing behavior of sealing gaskets for circumferential joints in shield tunnels: A full-scale experimental investigation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 108: 103682
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103682
5 S Y Liu, X F Zhang, X G Chen, C Wang, Y Chen. Exploratory research on drainage structure of highway tunnel based on reducing the risk of crystallization blockage. Processes, 2022, 10(7): 1319
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10071319
6 S S Du, J H Tang. State-of-the-art review on failure mechanism and waterproofing performance of linings for shield tunnels. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022, 2022: 6104725
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6104725
7 H SunZ Shi J ShiZ Feng. Technology of waterproofing and drainage of Huashan tunnel in high cold region. In: Progress in Safety Science and Technology (Vol.IV) Part B—Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Safety Science and Technology. Shanghai: Science Press, 2004, 6
8 Y Wang, Y Yang, F Su, L Wang. Multiscale analytical method and its parametric study for lining joint leakage of shield tunnel. Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(23): 8528
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238528
9 Y XieZ Lv P Liu. Optimization of waterproof construction technology for lining structural joints of water-rich mountain tunnel. Highway, 2020, 65(12): 151−155 (in Chinese)
10 Q LiuZ Tan H RenX Wang R Xu. Study on new water stop for near sea tunnel. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2016, 29(12): 116−123 (in Chinese)
11 K LvZ Ji C Ma. Improvements to back water stops for tunnel construction joints. Modern Tunneling Technology, 2012, 49(5): 39−43 (in Chinese)
12 K LvC Ma Z JiP Xu. Design of the X-type drainable waterstop for use at the construction joint of tunnel linings. Modern Tunneling Technology, 2011, 48(6): 23−26 (in Chinese)
13 M ZhangS LiJ Liu. Research and development of the embedded rubber waterstops reinforced with horizontally built-in steel plates. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2019, 56(6): 52−56 (in Chinese)
14 S K Ham, K H Jeong, S W Lee. Waterproofing performance evaluation according to the number of layer for shield TBM segment hydrophilic rubber waterstop. Journal of Korean Tunnelling and Underground Space Association, 2020, 22(1): 47–58
https://doi.org/10.9711/KTAJ.2020.22.1.047
15 B H Cho, B H Nam, S Seo, J Kim, J An, H Youn. Waterproofing performance of waterstop with adhesive bonding used at joints of underground concrete structures. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 221: 491–500
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.103
16 Z TanZ Li Z ZhouQ LiuZ Chen. Experiment study on waterproofing system of large section near sea tunnel. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2016, 29(12): 109−115 (in Chinese)
17 Z Zhou, Z Tan, Q Liu, J Zhao, Z Dong. Experimental investigation on mechanical characteristics of waterproof system for near-sea tunnel: A case study of the Gongbei tunnel. Symmetry, 2020, 12(9): 1524
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091524
18 C Gong, W Ding, K M Mosalam. Performance-based design of joint waterproofing of segmental tunnel linings using hybrid computational/experimental procedures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 96(C): 103172
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103172
19 W Ding, C Gong, K M Mosalam, K Soga. Development and application of the integrated sealant test apparatus for sealing gaskets in tunnel segmental joints. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2017, 63: 54–68
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.008
20 X G Wu, X K Chen, S Y Yu, S Hong, T H K Kang. Experimental study on waterproofing properties of putty-based composite rubber strip for underground post-tensioned precast concrete structures. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 2019, 13(1): 1–12
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0307-y
21 H B Fan, D P Zhao, J X Lai, Y Xie. Water pressure and stress characteristics of lining structure in water rich karst tunnel. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, 218(1): 012122
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/218/1/012122
22 C J Gong, Y Y Wang, Y C Peng, W Ding, M Lei, Z Da, C 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
23 Z E Zhang, M L Huang, C L Wang, B Jiang, Q Guan. Analysis and calculation of lining water pressure of high water pressure karst tunnel. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 2020, 510(5): 052057
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/510/5/052057
24 C TangY Zhang. Discussion on mechanism and evolution laws of fracture spacing in rock mass. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 27(7): 1362−1369 (in Chinese)
25 G LiC Tang L LiZ Liang. Numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic fracturing process. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2010, 32(12): 1875−1881 (in Chinese)
26 X MenC Tang T Ma. Numerical simulation on influence of rock mass parameters on fracture propagation during hydraulic fracturing. Journal of Northeastern University (Natural Science), 2013, 34(5): 700−703 (in Chinese)
27 Y LiM Huang B Jiang. Study on the Technology of Tunnel Expansion and Construction through Large Karst Cave Group with High Water Pressure. Beijing: China Communications Press Co., Ltd., 2022 (in Chinese)
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed