Analytical method for calculating the coefficient of technological soil sampling in the organization of mining and construction works with the use of mechanized tunneling

The organization of mining operations is characterized by a significant discrepancy between the calculated and actual precipitation of buildings and structures, especially during shield tunneling of subway tunnels. The article gives the reasons for this discrepancy. The underground construction method is characterized by the greatest precipitation, when modeling deformations of the soil massif in the case of soil development in a closed way. The most important design parameter is the search of the soil, its value is equal to the ratio of the area of the soil removed during sinking, located within the contour of the workings, to the area of its cross-section. The reasons for the search of soil in the case of tunneling in an underground way, leading to technological deformations of the surface, are listed. The research carried out in this area, the assumptions made are described and the final results of the analysis are given in the form of a dependence of the soil sampling coefficient on the shield diameter for various types of soil. All the studies were carried out on the example of the sinking of a specific construction object — a double-track distillation tunnel under the station “Pechatniky” of the LublinDmitrov line of the Moscow metro, conducted in difficult mining and geological conditions under a complex of underground structures. The comparability of the obtained values with the results of foreign research in this direction is noted. It is concluded that the organization of mining operations with the use of mechanized shield sinking should be based on the results of model studies of the coefficient of technological soil sampling, depending on the diameter of the shield, the type of soil (clay, loam, sandy loam, sand) and take into account the data of geotechnical monitoring at metro facilities. Only with this approach can precipitation of the Earth’s surface be minimized.

Kulikova E. Yu., Konyukhov D. S., Potokina A. M., Ustinov D. V. Analytical method for calculating the coefficient of technological soil sampling in the organization of mining and construction works with the use of mechanized tunneling. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2022;(6−2):305—315. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2022_62_0_305.

Kulikova E.Yu. , Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Professor, National Research Technological University “MISIS”, Moscow, Russia, fragrante@mail.ru;
Konyukhov D. S., Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Associate Professor, National Research Technological University “MISIS”, Moscow, Russia, gidrotehnik@inbox.ru;
Potokina A. M., engineer, Mosinzhproekt OJSC, Moscow, Russia, ann.potokina@mail.ru; 
Ustinov D. V., Senior lecturer, National Research Technological University “MISIS”, Moscow, Russia, ustinov.d@gmail.com.

1. Konyuhov D. S., Borodina E. V. A computational and empirical method for predicting technological deformations during trench-type “diaphragm wall” construction. Markshejderskij vestnik. 2021, no. 5−6, pp. 19−26 [In Russ].

2. Konyukhov D. S. Analysis of mechanized tunneling parameters to determine the overcutting characteristics. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2022;7(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-0632-2022-1-49−56.

3. Konyukhov D. S., Kazachenko S. A. The main factors affecting the convergence of calculated and actual values of deformations of existing buildings. Russian Mining Industry. 2022;(2):103–111. https://doi.org/10.30686/1609-9192-2022-2-103−111. [In Russ].

4. Ter-Martirosyan A. Z., Kivlyuk V. P., Isaev I. O., Shishkina V. V. Determination of the actual excess excavation ratio (section “Kosino” — “Yugo-Vostochnaya”). Construction and Geotechnics. 2021, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 5−14. DOI: 10.15593/2224−9826/2021.2.01. [In Russ].

5. Chung-Jung Lee, Bing-Ru Wu, and Shean-Yau Chiou. Soil Movements Around a Tunnel in Soft Soils. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC(A), 23(2). — Repub. China, 1999, pp. 235−247.

6. Bourget A. P. F., Chiriotti E., Patrinieri E. Evolution of risk management during an underground project’s life cycle. Tunnels and Underground Cities: Engineering and Innovation meet Archaeology, Architecture and Art — Peila, Viggiani & Celestino (Eds). — London, Taylor & Francis Group. 2019, pp. 4375−4385.

7. Mangushev R. A., Nikiforova N. S. Technological settlement of buildings and structures in the zone of influence of underground construction. Edited by R. A. Mangushev. Moscow, ASV Publ., 2017, 168 p. [In Russ].

8. Tupikov M. M. Peculiarities of the deformation of the ground massif and structures during the construction of shallow buried communication tunnels in urban conditions. Abstract of Ph. D. thesis, Moscow, MGUPS, 2011. 24 p. [In Russ].

9. Bakker K. J., Bezuijen A., Broere W., Kwast E. A. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium TC28. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2005.

10. Mahdi S., Gastebled O., Khodr S. Back analysis of ground settlements induced by TBM excavation for the north extension of Paris metro, line 12. Tunnels and Underground Cities: Engineering and Innovation meet Archaeology, Architecture and Art — Peila, Viggiani & Celestino (Eds). London, Taylor & Francis Group. 2019, pp. 2606−2615.

11. Mahdi S., Gastebled O., Ningre H., Senechal M. Grand Paris Express, Line 15 East — predictive damage analysis combining continuous settlement trough modelling, risk management, automated vulnerability checks and visualization in GIS. Tunnels and Underground Cities: Engineering and Innovation meet Archaeology, Architecture and Art — Peila, Viggiani & Celestino (Eds). — London, Taylor & Francis Group. 2019, pp. 5855−5864.

12. Kulikova E. Yu., Balovtsev S. V. Risk control system for the construction of urban underground structures. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2020, 962(4), 042020. DOI: 10.1088/1757−899X/962/4/042020.

13. Potapova E. V. Methodology for assessing geotechnical risks for metro facilities using the big data resource. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021;(2–1):164−173. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2021-21−0-164−173.

14. Potapova E. V. Typology of metro structures for the tasks of geotechnical risk classification. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2021;6:52−60. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.17073/2500-0632-2021-1-52−60.

15. Zinovieva O. M., Kuznetsov D. S., Merkulova A. M., Smirnova N. A. Digitalization of industrial safety management systems in mining. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021;(2– 1):113−123. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2021-21−0-113−123.

16. Potapova E. V. Expert-statistical approach to the analysis of geotechnical risks in the construction of metro facilities. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2020, 962(4), 042052. DOI:10.1088/1757−899X/962/4/042052.

17. Xing-Tao Lin, Ren-Peng Chen, Huai-Na Wu, Hong-Zhan Cheng. Deformation behaviors of existing tunnels caused by shield tunneling undercrossing with oblique angle. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology. 2019, vol. 89, рр. 78−90. DOI:10.1016/j. tust.2019.03.021.

18. Lebedev M. O. Validation of choice of stress–strain analysis method for support and lining in traffic tunnels. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2020;(1):47−60. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2020-1-0-47-60.

19. Kulikova A. A., Ovchinnikova T. I. On the issue of reducing geoecological risks at mining enterprises. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021;(2–1):251−262. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2021-21-0-251-262.