Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify and prioritize the causes of delay in development projects and present strategies to reduce the delay.

The discussion includes the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) method for converting survey data, fuzzy risk priority number (FRPN) for prioritizing the delay factors, and the proposed solutions to reduce the delay of projects.

The research provided prioritized delay factors to show the importance of each delay factor in the projects by analyzing the survey data. Results show that lack of proper contract price to win the tender has the most impact on the delay of development project between delay factors.

This study offered some guidelines for people who are involved with contracts and development projects, so that they can use these suggestions to prevent possible factors that may cause delay in projects. This paper also demonstrated a process of analyzing the data which was provided by FMEA and FRPN methods.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methods employed for classifying and quantifying the potential of squeezing in tunnels. Along with the empirical and semi‐empirical approaches presently available in order to anticipate the potential of squeezing tunnel problems, the squeezing potential of Karaj water transfer tunnel and North West Tunnel Convey (NWTC) tunnels (Lot 2), located in Iran, are evaluated and presented. Those two case studies have an interesting geology profile and parameters to identify and then evaluate the squeezing potential.

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the tunnel construction. This paper describes the squeezing behavior of poor rock mass associated with deformability and strength properties. In Karaj water transfer tunnel, there are eight lithological rock types; and NWTC tunnel (Lot2) has 21 Lithological rock types. The parameters for rock classification, such as rock quality designation (RQD), rock mass rating (RMR), modified RMR, Q‐system, geological strength index (GSI), rock mass index (RMi), and rock structure rating (RSR) are evaluated and presented here. The parameters mentioned above are the input parameters for squeezing study in Karaj and NWTC tunnels. According to different methods of squeezing evaluation of tunnel presented in tables, the results of two case studies are presented in this paper.

One of the more significant findings to emerge from this study showed that about 3 km of the second part of NWTC tunnel, and 2 km of the Karaj tunnel have high squeezing potential. This research deals with not only an overview of the methods used for the identifying and quantifying of squeezing along with the empirical and semi‐empirical approaches presently available in order to anticipate the potential of squeezing tunnel problem, but also the case studies of NWTC and Karaj tunnels to evaluate and compare the potential of squeezing by different methods. These two tunnel case studies have high potential of squeezing therefore the lining of those two tunnels must be strong enough to overcome this issue.

This study is a precise and concise comparison of the evaluation of tunnels under squeezing rock condition. The present study confirms the previous findings and contributes additional evidence that suggests that there are many studies conducted using empirical and analytical methods to determine the squeezing phenomenon in tunnels. This paper responds to the various questions like, what is the squeezing phenomenon. How can we quantify the potential of squeezing in weak rock? What are the different approaches to the understanding of squeezing phenomenon?

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the numerical methods in tunnel engineering and their capabilities to indicate the fracture and failure in all kinds of tunneling methods such as New Austrian Tunneling Method, tunnel boring machine and cut‐cover. An essential definition of numerical modeling of tunnels to determine the interaction between geo‐material (soil and rock) surrounding the tunnel structure is discussed.

Tunnel geo‐material (soil and rock) interaction requires advanced constitutive models for the numerical simulation of linear, nonlinear, time‐dependent, anisotropic, isotropic, homogenous and nonhomogeneous behaviors. The numerical models discussed in this paper are developed in finite element method (FEM), finite deference method (FDM), boundary element method and discrete element method and these tools are used to illustrate the behavior of tunnel structure deformation under different loads and in complicated conditions. The disadvantage of this method is the tunnel lining assumed an independent structure under fixed load which is unable to model soil‐lining interaction. Predicting the effect of all natural factors on tunnels is the most difficult method. The above‐mentioned numerical methods are very simple and quick to use and the results are conservative and practical for users. One of the most significant advantages of the numerical method is in predicting the critical area surrounding the tunnel and the tunnel structure before making the tunnel construction due to different loads.

Numerical modeling is used as control method in reducing the risk of tunnel construction failures. Since some factors such as settlement and deformation are not completely predictable in rock and soil surrounding the tunnel, using numerical modeling is a very economical and capable method in predicting the behavior of tunnel structures in various complicated conditions of loading. Another benefit of using numerical simulation is in the colorful illustrations predicting the tunnel behavior before, during and after construction and operation.

There are not many conducted studies using numerical models to tunnel structures that estimate the critical zones. As some of the methods available have limitation in simulating and modeling the whole tunnel design factors, numerical modeling seems to be the best option, because it is fast, economical, accurate and more interesting in predicating critical zones in tunnel. However, what softwares predict are not always the same as real ground nature conditions in which there is tunnel.