DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study of Influence Factors for Prediction of Ground Subsidence Risk

  • Park, Jin Young (Korea National Oil Corporation) ;
  • Jang, Eugene (Dept. of Construction Safety and Disaster Prevention, Daejeon Univ.) ;
  • Ihm, Myeong Hyeok (Dept. of Construction Safety and Disaster Prevention, Daejeon Univ.)
  • Received : 2017.06.11
  • Accepted : 2017.06.27
  • Published : 2017.07.05

Abstract

This Analyzed case study of measuring displacement, implemented laboratory investigation, and in-situ testing in order to interpret ground subsidence risk rating by excavation work. Since geological features of each country are different, it is necessary to objectify or classify quantitatively ground subsidence risk evaluation in accordance with Korean ground character. Induced main factor that could be evaluated and used to predicted ground subsidence risk through literature investigation and analysis study on research trend related to the ground subsidence. Major factors of ground subsidence might be classified by geological features as overburden, boundary surface of ground, soil, rock and water. These factors affect each other differently in accordance with type of ground that's classified soil, rock, or complex. Then rock could be classified including limestone element or not, also in case of the latter it might be classified whether brittle shear zone or not.

References

  1. Carbognin, L., et al. (1984), Case History no 9.3. Venice, Italy. Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal, International Hydrological Programme, Working Group 8, 161-174.
  2. Cheng, Yuxiang, Jun Zhang, and Jianbing Peng (2013), ArcGIS-based evaluation of geo-hazards at Yaozhou County, Shaanxi, China. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 5(4), 330-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2012.11.002
  3. Clough, G. Wayne, and Thomas D. Clough, G. W. and O'Rourke, T. D. (1990), Construction induced movements of insitu walls. In Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, pp. 439-470.
  4. Figueroa Vega, G. E. (1984), Case history No. 9.8 Mexico, DF, Mexico. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal: Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, 217-232.
  5. Finno, R. J., Bryson, S. and Michele, C. 2002, Performance of a stiff support system in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(8), 660-671. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:8(660)
  6. Finno, Richard J. and Michele Calvello (2005), Supported excavations: observational method and inverse modeling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(7), 826-836. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:7(826)
  7. Gabrysch, R. K. (1984), Case history no. 9.12. The Houston-Galveston region, Texas, USA. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal: UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology 20, 253-262.
  8. Hou, Yanjuan, et al. (2015), Excavation failure due to pipeline damage during shallow tunnelling in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46, 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.11.004
  9. Karim, Mir Fazlul (2005), A Note On Some Geological Advantages For Construction Of Underground Railway Transit System In The City Of Dhaka.
  10. Leung, Erin HY, and Charles WW Ng (2007), Wall and ground movements associated with deep excavations supported by cast in situ wall in mixed ground conditions. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 133(2), 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(129)
  11. Liu, G. B., Charles W. Ng, and Z. W. Wang (2005), Observed performance of a deep multistrutted excavation in Shanghai soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131(8), 1004-1013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(1004)
  12. Liu, Guo B., et al. (2011), Deformation characteristics of a 38 m deep excavation in soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48(12), 1817-1828. https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-075
  13. Long, M. (2001), Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep excavations, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 207(3), 203-224.
  14. Nikolinakou, Maria A., et al. (2011), Prediction and interpretation of the performance of a deep excavation in Berlin sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137(11), 1047-1061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000518
  15. Paul F. Bixley (1984), Case history No. 9.9. The Wairakei Geothermal Field, New Zealand. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal: Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, 233-240.
  16. Peck, R. B. (1969), Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanic sand Foundation Engineering, MexicoCity, Mexico, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, theNetherlands, State-of-the-artvolume, 225-281.
  17. Perrin, Jérôme, et al. (2015), A multicriteria approach to karst subsidence hazard mapping supported by weights-of-evidence analysis. Engineering Geology 197, 296-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.09.001
  18. Poland, J. F. and B. E. Lofgren (1984), Case history 9.13, San Joaquin Valley, California, USA. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal: UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, 263-277.
  19. Poland, J. F. (1984), Case history no. 9.14. Santa Clara Valley, California, USA. Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal. Unesco, Paris, 340.
  20. Poulsen, B. A. and B. Shen (2013), Subsidence risk assessment of decommissioned bord-and-pillar collieries. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 60, 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.014
  21. Reddy, Krishna R. and Jeffrey A. Adams (2001), Effects of soil heterogeneity on airflow patterns and hydrocarbon removal during in situ air sparging. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(3), 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:3(234)
  22. Roboski, Jill, and Richard J. Finno (2006), Distributions of ground movements parallel to deep excavations in clay. Canadian geotechnical journal 43(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-091
  23. Sakai, H. and K. Maeda (2009), Seepage Failure and Erosion Mechanism of Granular Material With Evolution of Air Bubbles Using SPH. AIP Conference Proceedings. Eds. Masami Nakagawa, and Stefan Luding. Vol. 1145. No. 1. AIP, 2009.
  24. Seo, Min-Woo, et al. (2009), Sequential analysis of ground movements at three deep excavation sites with mixed ground profiles. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 136(5), 656-668. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000257
  25. Shao, Yong, and Emir Jose Macari (2008), Information feedback analysis in deep excavations. International Journal of Geomechanics 8(1), 91-103. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:1(91)
  26. Shi, L. X. and M. F. Bao (1984), Case History No. 9.2; Shanghai, China. Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Ground-water Withdrawal. UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, 155-160.
  27. Singh, K. B. (2007), Pot-hole subsidence in son-Mahanadi master coal basin. Engineering Geology, 89(1), 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.011
  28. Soki Yamamoto (1984), Case history No. 9.10. Bangkok, Thailand. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal: Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, 241-244.
  29. Tan, Y. and Li, M. (2011), Measured performance of a 26 m deep top-down excavation in downtown Shanghai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(5), 704-719. https://doi.org/10.1139/t10-100
  30. Toan, Nguyen Duc, M. Eng, and Luu Xuan Hung (2010), Hanoi Metro Pilot Line Project: Some aspects of risk management and subsidence.
  31. Vilar, Orencio Monje, and Roger Augusto Rodrigues (2011), Collapse behavior of soil in a Brazilian region affected by a rising water table. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48(2), 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1139/T10-065
  32. Wei, Hong, and Jun Yi. (2013), Gravity Pendulum Tilting Monitor. Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 313. Trans Tech Publications, 2013.
  33. Yamamoto, S. (1984a), Case History No. 9.4. Tokyo, Japan. Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Groundwater Withdrawal. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, 175-184.
  34. Yamamoto, S. (1984b), Case History No. 9.5. Osaka, Japan. Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Groundwater Withdrawal. UNESCO, Paris, 185-194.
  35. Yamamoto, S. (1984c), Case history No. 9.6. Nobi Plain, Japan. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal, UNESCO International Hydrological Programme, Working Group 8, 195-204.
  36. Yamamoto, S. (1984d), Case History No. 9.7. Niigata, Japan. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, UNESCO International Hydrological Programme, Working Group 8, 205-216.
  37. Yetton, Mark D. (1986), Investigation and remedial methods for subsurface erosion control in Banks Peninsula loess.