4.5 Article

Ground Response to Multiple Parallel Microtunneling Operations in Cemented Silty Clay and Sand

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001441

Keywords

Microtunneling; Field monitoring; Ground movement; Case history

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41372283]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2015CB057806]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a case history of the successful application of observational method to instruction microtunneling with successive pipe-jacking. The microtunneling project is the construction of four parallel pipes under Guan River in Jiangsu, China. Four parallel tunnels with external diameter of 4,160 mm and horizontally spaced at 4.8 m apart were jacked over 450 m in cemented silty clay and sand by two slurry-balance microtunnel boring machines (MTBM) at a depth of 4.6 m under the river bed. Since the overburden soil is very thin, proper control of tunneling operations was of utmost importance for maintaining the stability of the river bed. In order to optimize the operation parameters prior to construction under the river bed, a field trial was conducted, which included measurement of ground surface settlement, subsurface settlement, and lateral displacement of the subsurface soils, as well as excess pore water pressure and earth pressure. The relationship between ground response and construction operation parameters is summarized. Appropriate operation parameters were applied during tunneling under Guan River. Although tunneling and pipe jacking under the river was successfully carried out, a difficulty was encountered when the MTBM reached the opposite bank and large settlements were observed. This paper discusses the technical issues faced and lessons learnt from interpretation of the monitoring data collected. (C) 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available