Risk Control Method and Practice in the Whole Construction Process of a Shield Tunneling Pipe Gallery in Complex Surrounding Underground Environment
Publication: ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
Volume 8, Issue 3
Abstract
This paper establishes a risk control method that ensures the construction safety of a comprehensive underground pipe gallery in a complex surrounding environment. Through risk identification, risk analysis, and the application of numerical simulation, the construction safety of an underground pipe gallery crossing in close range of an existing bridge was evaluated and monitored. Construction risk control measures are formulated based on the geological conditions, engineering experiences, numerical simulation, and risk assessment. By using an information monitoring system during the whole construction process, the construction parameters are adjusted and optimized. The implementation shows a good control effect. The numerical analysis indicates the key risk control indicators that are verified from the monitoring results at the construction site. Both the displacement of the ground and the structure all meet the control requirements. The good implementation effect suggests that the construction risk can be controlled and that the suggested risk control method is reasonable and applicable. This research and case study results provide design, construction, and risk management experience for subsequent similar projects.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the published article.
References
Canto-Perello, J., and J. Curiel-Esparza. 2013. “Assessing governance issues of urban utility tunnels.” Tunneling Underground Space Technol. Incorporating Trenchless Technol. Res. 33 (Jan): 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.08.007.
Ghosh, S., and J. Jintanapakanont. 2004. “Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: A factor analysis approach.” Int. J. Project Manage. 22 (8): 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.004.
Hu, J., J. Du, Y. Li, T. Guan, Y. W. Wu, and S. C. Wang. 2018. “Practice of BIM technology on utility tunnel in Haikou.” Natl. Sci. J. Hainan Univ. 36 (1): 49–57. https://doi.org/10.15886/j.cnki.hdxbzkb.2018.0007.
Huang, H. W., M. Peng, and Q. F. Hu. 2009. “Risk assessment on Shanghai Yangtze river tunnel.” Chin. J. Underground Space Eng. 5 (1): 182–187.
Hunt, D. V. L., D. Nash, and C. D. F. Rogers. 2014. “Sustainable utility placement via Multi-Utility Tunnels.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 39 (1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.001.
Kang, L. S., S. F. Liu, H. K. Zhang, and D. Q. Gong. 2020. “Person anomaly detection-based videos surveillance system in urban integrated pipe gallery.” Build. Res. Inf. 49 (1): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2020.1779020.
Li, H., Y. C. Zheng, and J. S. Li. 2012. “Application of ANP_FE in the risk evaluation of metro tunnel excavation adjacent to existing structure.” Railway Stand. Des. 12: 84–87. https://doi.org/10.13238/j.issn.1004-2954.2012.12.030.
Li, Q., and X. T. Zhao. 2017. “Risk analysis of the whole life cycle of integrated pipe gallery.” Value Eng. 36 (10): 240–242. https://doi.org/10.14018/j.cnki.cn13-1085/n.2017.10.095.
Liu, X. L., Y. Li, X. Y. Wang, and G. Filip. 2019. “Anti-explosion performance of different anti-explosion structures under gas explosion in pipe gallery.” Chin. J. High Pressure Phys. 33 (4): 197–206.
Nejad, H. S., H. H. Hosserni, and R. R. Nejad. 2007. “Evaluation of the effects of shield tunneling on the historical Sio-Se-Pol bridge piles.” Underground Space 2: 1235–1240.
Teparaksa, W., T. Tangpraprutgul, C. Boonsong, and J. Boonard. 2006. “Ground and bridge displacement due to EPB shield tunnel bored underneath bridge pile foundation.” In Vol. 4 of Proc., Int. Symp. on Underground Excavation and Tunneling, 299–307. Bangkok: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
Zhang, X. H., Y. X. Guan, Z. Fang, and Y. F. Liao. 2016. “Fire risk analysis and prevention of urban comprehensive pipeline corridor.” Procedia Eng. 135: 463–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.156.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 6, 2021
Accepted: Apr 30, 2022
Published online: Jun 27, 2022
Published in print: Sep 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Nov 27, 2022
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Buried pipes
- Business management
- Construction engineering
- Construction methods
- Disaster risk management
- Engineering fundamentals
- Infrastructure
- Models (by type)
- Numerical models
- Occupational safety
- Pipeline systems
- Pipes
- Practice and Profession
- Public administration
- Public health and safety
- Risk management
- Safety
- Special condition construction
- Structural engineering
- Structures (by type)
- Underground construction
- Underground structures
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Xiaojuan Li, Lulu Li, Rixin Chen, C. Y. Jim, Comprehensive Risk System Analysis and Factor Coupling in Underground Railway Space, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 10.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG-1233, 10, 3, (2024).
- Yan Cao, Zhiqi Gong, Na Li, Qiuyu Wang, How to Guarantee the Sustainable Operation and Maintenance of Urban Utility Tunnels? From the Perspective of Stakeholder and the Whole Life Cycle, Buildings, 10.3390/buildings13071810, 13, 7, (1810), (2023).
- Yuanyuan Tian, Qingbiao Wang, Zhongjing Hu, Shuo Yang, Chuanxiong Peng, Xu Zhang, Zhongying Li, Xugang Wang, Research on the Influence of Groundwater in Coastal Areas on the Stress and Deformation Characteristics of Integrated Pipe Gallery, Geofluids, 10.1155/2022/3463752, 2022, (1-15), (2022).