[논문]도심지 대단면 복합지반 NATM 과 TBM 터널공법의 비교위험도 분석

김영근; 문준식; 심재범; 이승복; 최창림; 천윤철

doi:10.9711/ktaj.2011.13.1.019

초록
AI-Helper

터널 공사 중 많은 문제를 야기시킬 수 있는 불확실한 지반상태 및 터널 공법에 따른 여러 리스크를 최소화 할 수 있도록 전반적인 위험도 평가를 터널 설계 시 반드시 수행하여야 한다. 본 연구에서는 도심지 및 하저터널 구간의 터널공법으로 NATM 또는 쉴드 TBM 적용시 공법별 발생할 수 있는 리스크에 대하여 분석하였다. 우선 연구대상 지역의 주요 리스크 항목을 선정한 후 공법적용시 발생 가능한 리스크와 그 영향을 검토하고, 각각의 리스크 발생가능성과 터널공사에 미치는 위험도에 따라 정량적으로 등급화 하였다. 이러한 리스크 분석을 통하여 주요 위험도 영향을 고려한 공사비 및 공기분석을 수행하고 터널공법별 비교위험도를 평가하였다. 본 연구결과를 바탕으로 복합지반으로 구성된 도심지 대단면 터널에 대해 리스크 발생을 최소화 할 수 있는 안전하고 경제적인 터널공법을 선정하였다. 단, 본 연구는 국한된 지층 및 특별조건에서의 비교위험도를 평가한 결과임을 밝혀둔다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The risk assessment is essential for tunnel design in order to minimize risks associated with uncertainty about geological conditions and tunneling method. This paper provides a comparative risk analysis of a large single bore TBM driven tunnel against sequentially excavated NATM tunnel for a mixed-...

The risk assessment is essential for tunnel design in order to minimize risks associated with uncertainty about geological conditions and tunneling method. This paper provides a comparative risk analysis of a large single bore TBM driven tunnel against sequentially excavated NATM tunnel for a mixed-face large-diameter urban tunnel project near or under a river. The focus of this assessment is on the risks associated with the tunnel excavation methods, in particular whether a TBM or NATM presents more or less risk to achieve the planned excavation duration and bring the project within the estimated bid price. First, the impacts and risks to tunnel construction under each method were discussed, and the risks were scored and ranked in the order of perceived severity and likelihood. Finally, the assessment from a risk based perspective was conducted to decide which alternate tunneling method is more likely to deliver the project with the least time and cost. It is very important to note that this study is only applied to this tunnel project with specific geological conditions and other contract requirements.

주제어

AI 본문요약
AI-Helper

* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.

문제 정의

A comparative risk analysis of TBM against NATM tunneling was carried out in this paper. The main purpose of this study is to assess whether the project using NATM or TBM method can achieve the planned excavation duration and bring the project within the estimated bid price. The analysis results would help to decide which tunneling method alternative needs to be selected to complete the mixed-face large urban tunnel project with the least time and cost.

제안 방법

A comparative risk analysis of TBM against NATM tunneling was carried out in this paper. The main purpose of this study is to assess whether the project using NATM or TBM method can achieve the planned excavation duration and bring the project within the estimated bid price.
The assessment in this paper will focus on finding risks associated with the tunneling methods, especially TBM tunneling method and NATM, and determining the tunneling method presenting less risk to complete the project within the estimated bid price and the planned excavation duration. The success of tunnel project is mainly dependent upon achieving planned advance rates during excavation.
Uncertainty about the construction duration was applied based upon optimistic, most likely and pessimistic advance rates for both the NATM and TBM methods. These ranges of advance rate are presented in the Tables 5 and 6 (Samsung C&T, 2010b).

대상 데이터

The tunnel alignment is close to the lineament that follows the river (NW-SE). The tunnel portals are located in the old alluvial flood plains.

성능/효과

Advance rates for the NATM approach were assessed based upon 9 groups of support categories, as shown in Table 5. Similarly, TBM advance rates were assessed in the five predominant ground types I through V, as shown in Table 6. Normal practice is to assess the most likely advance rates in various ground conditions requiring varying levels of excavation sequencing and ground support.
The analysis results would help to decide which tunneling method alternative needs to be selected to complete the mixed-face large urban tunnel project with the least time and cost. For NATM, the risk analysis found that the project had a 72% confidence in completing the project within the estimated time and a 49% confidence in completing the project at or under the estimated cost. For the TBM method, the risk analysis found that the project had a <1% confidence in completing the project within the estimated time and a <1% confidence in completing the project at or under the estimated cost.
For the TBM method, the risk analysis found that the project had a <1% confidence in completing the project within the estimated time and a <1% confidence in completing the project at or under the estimated cost.
If only the uncertainty in productivity (i.e. advance rates) is considered for the analysis, it would appear that there is a reasonably high confidence (> 70%) that the planned 57 months from mobilization to completion of tunnel excavation and lining for the NATM approach can be achieved.
The optimistic daily advance rates for the TBM were doubled in the model. The outcome was that this reduced the 50% probability of achieving completion of tunneling (assuming one TBM) from 78 months to 74 months. This would indicate, as expected, that in these ground conditions the success of the TBM option is more dependent upon the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of risk events than it is by general uncertainty in advance rates.

후속연구

The main purpose of this study is to assess whether the project using NATM or TBM method can achieve the planned excavation duration and bring the project within the estimated bid price. The analysis results would help to decide which tunneling method alternative needs to be selected to complete the mixed-face large urban tunnel project with the least time and cost. For NATM, the risk analysis found that the project had a 72% confidence in completing the project within the estimated time and a 49% confidence in completing the project at or under the estimated cost.

참고문헌 (10)

Barla, G., Pelizza, S. (2000), TBM Tunnelling in Difficult Ground Conditions.
Barton, N. (2000), TBM Tunneling in Jointed and Faulted Rock, Taylor & Francis, p. 184.
Holen, H., Anlegg, S. (1998), TBM vs drill & blast tunnelling, Norwegian TBM Society, pp. 95-98.
Huang, R. (2008), The Shanghai Yangtse River Tunnel: Theory, Design, and Construction, p. 360.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (2010), Tunnel Options Risk Assessment for OOO Road Expansion Project.
Samsung C&T (2010a), OOO Road Expansion Project - Geotechnical Investigation Report.
Samsung C&T (2010b), OOO Road Expansion Project - Tunnel Design Report.
Tarkoy, P.J. (1996), "Comparing TBMs with drill and blast excavation", Int'1 J. of Rock Mech. and Mining Sci. and Geomech. Abst., Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 186A-186A(1).
URS Corporation (2005), OOO Tunnel Project - Qualitative Risk Assessment Report.
Kim, Y., Hencher, S.R., Yoon, Y., Cho, S. (2002), "Determination of the construction method for Young Dong Tunnel by risk assessment", Tunneling Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 13-25.

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증

도심지 대단면 복합지반 NATM 과 TBM 터널공법의 비교위험도 분석
Comparative risk analysis of NATM and TBM for mixed-face large-diameter urban tunneling 원문보기

초록
AI-Helper

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

주제어

AI 본문요약
AI-Helper

문제 정의

제안 방법

대상 데이터

성능/효과

후속연구

참고문헌 (10)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

저자의 다른 논문 :

관련 콘텐츠

원문 보기

원문 URL 링크

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트

연합인증

도심지 대단면 복합지반 NATM 과 TBM 터널공법의 비교위험도 분석 Comparative risk analysis of NATM and TBM for mixed-face large-diameter urban tunneling 원문보기

초록 용어보기논문에서 용어와 풀이말을 자동 추출한 결과로, 시범 서비스 중입니다. AI-Helper

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

주제어

AI 본문요약 엑셀 다운로드 AI-Helper

문제 정의

제안 방법

대상 데이터

성능/효과

후속연구

참고문헌 (10)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

저자의 다른 논문 :

심재범 (5) 이승복 (5) 천윤철 (1)

관련 콘텐츠

원문 보기

원문 URL 링크

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트

도심지 대단면 복합지반 NATM 과 TBM 터널공법의 비교위험도 분석
Comparative risk analysis of NATM and TBM for mixed-face large-diameter urban tunneling 원문보기

초록
AI-Helper

AI 본문요약
AI-Helper