slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of tunnel face stability PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of tunnel face stability

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of tunnel face stability - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 136 Views
  • Uploaded on

Madrid, Sept. 2011. Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of tunnel face stability. Guilhem MOLLON. 2. Context: Excavation of a circular shallow tunnel using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) with a pressurized shield Two main challenges: Limit the ground displacements ->SLS

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of tunnel face stability' - carlos-chase


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Madrid, Sept. 2011

Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of tunnel face stability

Guilhem MOLLON

slide2

2

  • Context:
  • Excavation of a circular shallow tunnel using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) with a pressurized shield
  • Two main challenges:
  • Limit the ground displacements ->SLS
  • Ensure the tunnel face stability
  • ->ULS
  • Objectives of the study:
  • Improve the existing analytical models of assessment of the tunnel face stability
  • Implement and improve the probabilistic tools to evaluate the uncertainty propagation
  • Apply these tools to the improved analytical models

Introduction

slide3

3

Context:

-Face failure by collapse has been observed in real tunneling projects and in small-scale experiments

-To prevent collapse, a fluid pressure (air, slurry…) is applied to the tunnel face. If this pressure is too high, the tunnel face may blow-out towards the ground surface

-It is desirable to assess the minimal pressure σc (kPa) to prevent collapse, and the maximum pressure σb (kPa) to prevent blow-out.

-Many uncertainties exist for the assessment of these limit pressures

-A rational consideration of these uncertainties is possible using the probabilistic methods.

-The long-term goal is to develop reliability-based design methodologies for the tunnel face pressure.

Mashimo et al. [1999]

Schofield [1980]

Takano [2006]

Kirsh [2009]

Introduction

slide4

4

Deterministic input variables

Deterministic output variables

Deterministic model

Deterministic model

Random output variables

  • Probabilistic methods

Random input variables

Reliability methods

Failure probability

Obstacle n°1 : Computational cost

-Deterministic models are heavy

-Large amount of calls are needed

Introduction

slide6

6

Numerical model (FLAC3D software) :

-Application of a given pressure, and testing of the stability

-Determination of the limit pressure by a bisection method

-Average computation time : around 50 hours

-Accuracy : 0.1kPa

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide7

7

  • Observation of the failure shape:
  • The failure occurs in a different fashion if the soil is frictional or purely cohesive
  • Hence different failure mechanisms have to be developed for both cases

Collapse (active case)

Blow-out (passive case)

Frictional soil

Purely cohesive soil

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide8

8

Principles of the proposed models:

Theory:

-Models are developped in the framework of the kinematical theorem of the limit analysis theory

-A kinematically admissible velocity field is defined a priori for the failure

Assumptions:

-Frictional and/or cohesive Mohr-Coulomb soil

-Frictional soils: velocity vector should make an angle φ with the discontinuity (slip) surface

-Purely cohesive soils: failure without volume change

-Determination of the critical pressure of collapse or blow-out, by verifying the equality between the rate of work of the external forces (applied on the moving soil) and the rate ofenergy dissipation (related to cohesion)

Results: This method provides a rigorous lower bound of σcand a rigorous upper bound ofσb.

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide9

9

  • Existing mechanisms and first attempts:
  • Blow-out :
  • Leca and Dormieux (1990)
  • Mollon et al. (2009)
  • (M1 Mechanism)
  • Collapse:
  • Leca and Dormieux (1990)
  • Mollon et al. (2009)
  • (M1 Mechanism)
  • c. Mollon et al. (2010)
  • (M2 Mechanism)

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide10

10

M3 Mechanism (frictional soil):

-We assume a failure by rotational motion of a single rigid block of soil

-The external surface of the block has to be determined

-No simple geometric shape is able to represent properly this 3D external surface

-A spatial discretization has to be used

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide11

11

M3 Mechanism (frictional soils) :

Definition of a collection of points of the surface in the plane Πj+1, using the existing points in Πj

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide12

12

M3 Mechanism (collapse) :

φ=30°

φ=40°

φ=30° ; c=0kPa

φ=17° ; c=7kPa

φ=25°

Kirsh [2009]

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide13

13

M3 Mechanism (blow-out) :

φ=30° ; c=0kPa

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide14

14

vr

M4 Mechanism (purely cohesive soil):

-Deformation with no velocity discontinuity and no volume change

-All the deformation inside a tore of variable circular section

-Parabolic velocity profile

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide15

15

M4 Mechanism (purely cohesive soil):

-The axial and orthoradial components are known by assumption

-The remaining component (radial) is computed using

-This computation is performed numerically by FDM in toric coordinates

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide16

16

M4 Mechanism (purely cohesive soil):

Layout of the axial and radial components at the tunnel face, at the ground surface, and on the tunnel symetry plane:

The components are all null on the envelope: no discontinuity

The tensor ot the rate of strain leads to the rate of dissipated energy and to the computation of the critical pressure

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide17

17

M5 Mechanism (purely cohesive soil):

The point of maximum velocity is moved towards the foot or the crown of the tunnel face

Schofield [1980]

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide18

18

Numerical results (collapse):

-M1 to M5 mechanisms are compared to the best existing mechanisms of the littérature, and to the results of the numerical model

Frictional soil Purely cohesive soil

-> M3 (3 minutes) -> M5 (20 seconds)

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide19

19

Numerical results (blow-out):

-M1 to M5 mechanisms are compared to the best existing mechanisms of the littérature, and to the results of the numerical model

Frictional soil Purely cohesive soil

-> M3 (3 minutes) -> M5 (20 seconds)

1. Deterministic analysis of the stability of a tunnel face

slide21

21

Assessment of the failure probability: Random sampling methods

Monte-Carlo Simulations:

Random sampling around the mean point

Sample size:

103 to 106

-> Unaffordable for most of the models

Conclusion:

-A less costly probabilistic methodology is needed : the CSRSM

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide22

22

Collocation-based Stochastis Response Surface Methodology (CSRSM)

Simple case of study:

2 input RV: internal friction angle φ (°)

cohesion c (kPa)

1 output RV: critical collapse pressure σc (kPa)

Principle:

Substitute to the deterministic model a so-called meta- model with a negligible computational cost

For two random variables, the meta model is expressed by a polynomial chaos expansion (or PCE) of order n:

ξ1 and ξ2 are standard random variables (zero-mean, unit-variance), which represent φ et c in the PCE.

The terms Γi are multidimensional Hermite polynomials of degree ≤ n

The terms ai are the unknown coefficients to determine

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide23

23

Chosen model:Kinematic theorem of the limit analysis theory.

-> Five-blocks translational collapse mechanism

Shortcomings:-Geometrical imperfection of the model

-Biased estimation of the collapse pressure

Advantages: -Satisfying quantitative trends

-Computation time < 0.1s

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide24

24

Regression-based determination of the coefficients :

-Consider the combinations of the roots of the Hermite polynomial of degree n+1 in the standard space

-Express these points in the space of the physical variables (φ, c) :

-Evaluate the response of the deterministic model at these collocation points, and determine the unknown coefficients ai by regression

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide25

25

Validation of CSRSM:

Set of reference probabilistic parameters

-Gaussian uncorrelated random variables

-Friction angle : μφ=17° and COV(φ)=10%

-Cohesion : μc=7kPa and COV(c)=20%

Validation by Monte-Carlo sampling (106 samples)

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide26

26

Validation by the response surfaces

Method is validated and Order 4 is considered as optimal

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide27

27

Statistical distribution of the critical pressures

Deterministic models: M3 (frictional soil) and M5 (purely cohesive soil)

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide28

28

Statistical distribution of the critical pressures

φ=25° ; c=0kPa φ=0° ; c=20kPa

PDF

Critical collapse pressure

Critical blow-out pressure

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide29

29

Failure probability of a tunnel face

Frictional soil:

φ=25° ; c=0kPa

Cohesive soil:

φ=0° ; cu=20kPa

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide30

30

Comparison with a classical safety-factor approach

Frictional soil Purely cohesive soil

Test on 6 sands:

25°<φ<40° ; 150kPa<γD<250kPa

Test on 8 undrained clays:

20kPa<c<60kPa ; 150kPa<γD<250kPa

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide31

31

Failure probability in a purely cohesive soil

2. Probabilistic analysis

slide32

32

Conclusions:

-The continuous improvement of the computers velocities will make the probabilistic methods more and more affordable

-The results of this work make possible to build up tools for the reliability-based design of tunnels in a close future

-Most of the proposed methods and results may be transposed to other geotechnical fields, such as slopes or retaining walls

-However, these methods are only acceptable if the probabilistic scenario is well-defined (dispersions, type of laws, correlations…). Efforts should be made to improve our knowledge on soil variability:

What field/laboratory measurements methods are to be used to define properly the probabilistic scenario ?

How could we investigate the physical reasons of the soil variability ?

Conclusions - Perspectives

slide33

Madrid, Sept. 2011

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Guilhem MOLLON