4.7 Article

Reliability assessment on stability of tunnelling perpendicularly beneath an existing tunnel considering spatial variabilities of rock mass properties

Journal

TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 276-289

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.03.013

Keywords

Reliability assessment; Crossing tunnels; Safety factor; Maximum settlement; FORM; Spatial variability

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51608071]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China [cstc2018jcyjAX0632]
  3. Venture & Innovation Support Program for Chongqing Overseas Returnees [cx2017123]
  4. Special Funding for Postdoctoral research projects in Chongqing [Xm2017007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a simplified procedure to evaluate the failure probability of crossing tunnels considering the spatial variabilities of rock mass properties. Numerical package FLAC(3D) (Itasca, 2017) was adopted to carry out extensive parameter studies for crossing tunnels. Subsequently, two limit state functions have been developed via the logarithmic regression to estimate the global factor of safety as well as the induced maximum settlement of the existing tunnel. The developed surrogate models were implemented into the Excel First-Order Reliability Method (FORM) spreadsheet to calculate the ultimate limit state failure and the probability that the threshold maximum settlement value is exceeded. The variance reduction technique is incorporated into the FORM analysis for considering the spatial variabilities of rock mass properties. Based on the reliability results, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the critical design factor in construction of crossing tunnel. The proposed method provides an effective way to evaluate the safety and serviceability of tunnelling perpendicularly beneath an existing tunnel in spatial variable rock mass.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available