Skip to main content
Log in

Sheltering effect of vertical twin tunnel excavation for different horizontal distances on the ground and pipelines

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Subway tunnels are often designed as twin or multiline overlapping tunnels. The sheltering effect from the upper tunnel on the excavation of the lower tunnel is obvious. However, the mechanism of this sheltering effect has not been examined via detailed systematic research. Therefore, in this paper, centrifugal model tests on the excavation of vertical twin tunnels under typical sheltering conditions were carried out. Then, relevant numerical simulations were conducted, focusing on the change law of the ground and pipeline settlements and the principal stress and shear strain of soil under different sheltering conditions. Combining the results of the centrifugal model tests and relevant numerical simulations, for twin tunnels in an overlapping arrangement, the maximum ground settlement is caused by the excavation in the sequence of the upper tunnel first. However, for twin tunnels in a shouldering arrangement, the opposite sequence is caused by the sheltering effect. Sheltering effect is most prominent when the twin tunnels are in an overlapping arrangement. When the horizontal distance between the twin tunnels is 1DT, the ground settlement caused by excavation in the different sequences is the same. It is a critical state in which the sheltering effect is balanced with a disturbance effect. When the horizontal distance is from 1DT to 1.8DT, the sheltering effect gradually decreases, and the disturbance effect dominates as the distance increases. When the horizontal distance is more than 1.8DT, the sheltering effect basically disappears, and only the disturbance effect exists. Finally, the sheltering coefficient C is proposed, which is related to the horizontal distance between the twin tunnels. By introducing the stochastic medium theory, an equation is proposed, which can quantitatively predict the ground settlement by excavation under sheltering effects at different horizontal distances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wham B P, Argyrou C and O’Rourke T D 2016 Jointed pipeline response to tunneling induced ground deformation. Can. Geotech. J. 53: 1794–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yu S, Duan Z B, Liu Y, Ma M and Ma S K 2019 Estimating the effects of tunnelling on preexisting jointed pipelines. Adv. Civ. Eng.. 1643594

  3. Malhotra M, Sahu V, Srivastava A and Misra A K 2019 Impact of pile foundations adjacent to tunnels in sandy stratum. Sadhana-Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci. 44: 184

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 66: 157–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Addenbrooke T I and Potts D M 2001 Twin tunnel interaction: surface and subsurface effects. Int. J. Geomech. 1: 249–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang X, Zhao D S and Xu M L 2012 Numerical study on the effect of twin-tube shield excavation on adjacent pipelines. Appl. Mech. Mater. 170–173: 1491–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ng C W W and Lu H 2014 Effects of the construction sequence of twin tunnels at different depths on an existing pile. Can. Geotech. J. 51: 173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ma S, Liu Y, Shao Y, Duan Z and Lü H 2018 Effects of twin shield tunneling with different construction sequences and different relative locations on adjacent pipelines. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 40: 689–697

    Google Scholar 

  9. Taylor R E 2003 Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology. Blackie Academic and Professional, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Von Wolffersdorff P A 1996 A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a predefined limit state surface. Mech. Cohesive-frictional Mater. 1: 251–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herle I and Gudehus G 1999 Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive model from properties of grain assemblies. Mech. Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 4: 461–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yamashita S, Kawaguchi T and Nakata Y 2009 Interpretation of international parallel test on the measurement of G max using bender elements. Soils Found. 49: 631650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Niemunis A and Herle I 1997 Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range. Mech. Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 2: 279–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hong Y, Koo C H, Zhou C, Ng C W W and Wang L Z 2017 Small strain path-dependent stiffness of Toyoura sand: laboratory measurement and numerical implementation. Int. J. Geomech. 17: 04016036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Miura K, Maeda K and Furukawa M 1998 Mechanical characterristics of sands with different primary properties. Soils Found. 37: 53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Maeda K and Miura K 1999 Relative density dependency of mechanical properties of sands. Soils Found. 39: 69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yamashita S, Jamiolkowski M and Presti D C F L 2000 Stiffness nonlinearity of three sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126: 929–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Park K H 2004 Elastic solution for tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. Int. J. Geomech. 4: 310–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jacobsz S W, Standing J R, Mair R J, Hagiwara T and Suglyama T 2004 Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling near driven piles. Soils Found. 44: 49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Litwiniszyn J 1954 Przemieszczenia górotworu w świetle teorii prawdopodobieństwa. Arch. Gor. Hut. T. II 1: 45–68

    Google Scholar 

  21. Liu B 1993 Ground surface movements due to underground excavation in the People’s Republic of China. Comp. Rock Eng. 4: 781–817

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhiguo Z, Maosong H and Weidong W 2013 Analysis of ground settlements induced by subway shield excavation considering sheltering overlapped effects. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 32: 1750–1761

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yang X L and Wang J M 2011 Ground movement prediction for tunnels using simplified procedure. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 26: 462–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank for the financial support received from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51508113, 51678166 and 51968005) and the Guangxi Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Engineering Safety Systematic research project (2016ZDX003) and the Guangxi Key Project of Nature Science Foundation (No.2020GXNSFDA238024) and the Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education (YCBZ2020024) and Certificate of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Grant (2019M663874XB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhen Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, S., Duan, Z., Shao, Y. et al. Sheltering effect of vertical twin tunnel excavation for different horizontal distances on the ground and pipelines. Sādhanā 46, 48 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01565-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01565-9

Keywords

Navigation