Scholarlink

<p>The current numerical study focused on the assessment of single and twin tunnels through ground settlement, crown and invert level displacements, and structural force variations in non-cohesive and cohesive soils under static loading. Tunnel diameters of 6&#xa0;m, 9&#xa0;m, and 12&#xa0;m were analyzed with a critical spacing of 1.5D. In the case of single tunnels, a 12-m-diameter tunnel induced ~ 210–250% higher displacements than a 6-m-diameter tunnel in both cohesive and cohesionless soil types. For twin tunnels in sand, the displacement was nearly doubled, and hoop forces and bending moments also increased near the second tunnel due to interaction at close spacing. For tunnels constructed in cohesive soil, the variations in hoop force and bending moment were minimal due to the stress-independent nature of clay. This study also compared circular and D-shaped tunnel geometries constructed using Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM), respectively, in cohesive soil. D-shaped twin tunnels showed around 200% higher settlements at ground surface, crown, and invert levels compared to D-shaped single tunnel and circular twin tunnels. Therefore, circular tunnels excavated using TBM performed more effectively, whereas D-shaped NATM tunnels proved highly vulnerable under cohesive ground conditions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Numerical Study on Performance of Tunnels Under the Influence of Geometry and Soil Conditions

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月16日

查看全文
  • Shilpa Mary Sam,
  • Shazin Muhammed,
  • Seethalakshmi P

摘要

The current numerical study focused on the assessment of single and twin tunnels through ground settlement, crown and invert level displacements, and structural force variations in non-cohesive and cohesive soils under static loading. Tunnel diameters of 6 m, 9 m, and 12 m were analyzed with a critical spacing of 1.5D. In the case of single tunnels, a 12-m-diameter tunnel induced ~ 210–250% higher displacements than a 6-m-diameter tunnel in both cohesive and cohesionless soil types. For twin tunnels in sand, the displacement was nearly doubled, and hoop forces and bending moments also increased near the second tunnel due to interaction at close spacing. For tunnels constructed in cohesive soil, the variations in hoop force and bending moment were minimal due to the stress-independent nature of clay. This study also compared circular and D-shaped tunnel geometries constructed using Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM), respectively, in cohesive soil. D-shaped twin tunnels showed around 200% higher settlements at ground surface, crown, and invert levels compared to D-shaped single tunnel and circular twin tunnels. Therefore, circular tunnels excavated using TBM performed more effectively, whereas D-shaped NATM tunnels proved highly vulnerable under cohesive ground conditions.