Advertisement

Assessing the Hydrogeological Conditions Leading to the Corrosion and Deterioration of Pre-cast Segmental Concrete Linings (Case of Zagros Tunnel)

  • Ebrahim Fathi SalmiEmail author
  • Zohreh Soltani Asadi
  • Massoud Bayati
  • Mostafa Sharifzadeh
Original Paper
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Underground excavations are naturally under deteriorating environments due to corrosive ground water, type of minerals, and rock mass structures. The abundant of water (e.g., humidity and the inflow of groundwater), and the presence of chemical materials are among the main reasons creating such environments. Rock formations also contain minerals, which may be dissolved in the stream of groundwater and react with support measures (e.g., rock bolts, shotcrete and concrete linings). Deterioration is the main factor leading to the decay of the support systems and consequently affecting their functioning. The deterioration of support measures may result in significant consequences such as the failure of supports and the collapse of underground excavations, in long-term. It is, therefore, vitally required to investigate the long-term deterioration and behaviour of supports, and to find suitable approaches for mitigating the undesirable consequences of this natural phenomenon. Hence, the main scope of this study is to investigate the hydrogeological factors resulting in the deterioration of the segmental concrete linings at Zagros water transfer tunnel, located in the West of Iran. The key factors governing the deterioration mechanisms are identified and discussed based on a combination of field observation, laboratory testing and the literature studying of similar cases. The outcomes of these studies indicate that sulfate attack has been the crucial mechanism leading to the deterioration of the concrete linings in the Zagros tunnel. The hydrogeological condition of the tunnel well satisfies the four risk factors previously found by the UK Thaumasite Expert Group. The tunnel segmental concrete linings are, therefore, highly prone to sulfate attack. This study also shows that tunnelling through H2S and water bearing grounds has been the main reason providing such a deteriorating environment. The existence of organic materials (e.g., oil and coal) in the surrounding sedimentary rocks is expected to be the main source of H2S gases. The study is eventually complemented by proposing a few practical techniques to prevent further damage of the segmental linings, due to chemo-physical deteriorations.

Keywords

Tunnelling Water and gas bearing grounds H2Sulfate attack Corrosion Long-term deterioration Pre-cast concrete lining 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The technical supports provided by Dr. B. Rafiei, Dr. M. Tadayon, Dr. M. Heidari, Mr. M. Zaker Esteghamati and Mr. M. Nazemi, during the course of this study, are highly appreciated.

References

  1. Abbas S, Soliman AM, Nehdi M (2012) Mechanical and durability performance of precast tunnel linings. Paper presented at the Montreal TAC 2012, tunnels and underground spaces: sustainability and innovations, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbas S, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML (2014) Chloride ion penetration in reinforced concrete and steel fiber-reinforced concrete precast tunnel lining segments. ACI Mater J 111:613–621Google Scholar
  3. Aggelis D, Shiotani T, Kasai K (2008) Evaluation of grouting in tunnel lining using impact-echo. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmadkhani M (2013) Assessing the factors leading to the acidic attack and decaying of concrete and the consequences (in Persian). Paper presented at the 5th Iranian annual concrete conferenceGoogle Scholar
  5. Alsinawi SA, Al-Bazzaz AH (1975) A brief review of the alkali–silica in concrete and their applications to Iraqi aggregates. Eng Geol 9:123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Annett MF (1994) Grouting of tunnel linings, Structural Grouts In: Domone PLJJ, Jefferis SA (eds) Blackie academic & professional - an imprint of Chapman & Hall, Chap 9, pp 176–193Google Scholar
  7. Attiogbe EK, Rizkalla SH (1988) Response of concrete to sulfuric acid attack. ACI Mater J 85:481–488Google Scholar
  8. Bayati M, Hamidi JK (2017) A case study on TBM tunnelling in fault zones and lessons learned from ground improvement. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 63:162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellmann F, Erfurt W, Ludwig HM (2012) Field performance of concrete exposed to sulphate and low pH conditions from natural and industrial sources. Cem Concr Compos 34:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biczok I (1967) Concrete corrosion and concrete protection (second impression). Chemical Publishing Company Inc, Palm SpringsGoogle Scholar
  11. Crammond NJ (2003) The thaumasite form of sulfate attack in the UK. Cem Concr Compos 25:809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis AG, Lim MK, Petersen CG (2005) Rapid and economical evaluation of concrete tunnel linings with impulse response and impulse radar non-destructive methods. NDT E Int 38:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eftekhari A, Hamidi JK (2009) Geological hazards in TBM tunnelling—a case study from Zagros long tunnel. Paper presented at the 8th Iranian tunnelling conference, Tarbiat Modares UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Fookes PG (1980) An introduction to the influence of natural aggregates on the performance and durability of concrete. Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 13:207–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fouladgar A (2004) An overview of Koohrang-III water conveyance project and a brief review of the methods of excavation in different tunnel faces and adits (in Persian). Paper presented at the 6th Iranian tunnelling conference, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghafarian P, Gholami S, Owlad E, Gerivani H (2016) Rainfall–runoff temporal variability in Kermanshah province, Iran and distinguishing anthropogenic effects from climatic effects. J Earth Syst Sci 125:1299–1311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-016-0731-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghazban F, Motiei H (2010) Petroleum geology of the Persian Gulf. Tehran University Press, TehranGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagelia P (2011) Deterioration mechanisms and durability of sprayed concrete for rock support in tunnels. The University of Oslo, OsloGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagelia P, Sibbick RG, Crammond NJ, Larsen CK (2003) Thaumasite and secondary calcite in some Norwegian concretes. Cem Concr Compos 25:1131–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hassanpor J, Rostami J, Khamehchiyan M, Bruland A (2009) Developing new equations for TBM performance prediction in carbonate-argillaceous rocks: a case history of Nowsood water conveyance tunnel. Geomech Geoeng Int J 4:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hassanpor J, Ghaedi Vanani AA, Rostami J, Cheshomi A (2016) Evaluation of common TBM performance prediction models based on field data from the second lot of Zagros water conveyance tunnel (ZWCT2). Tunn Undergr Space Technol 52:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs DW, Taylor MG (2000) Nature of the thaumasite sulfate attack mechanism in field concrete. Cem Concr Res 30:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoff CHWD (2009) Water transport in brick, stone and concrete. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  24. Inokuma A, Inano S (1996) Road tunnels in Japan: deterioration and countermeasures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 11:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Irassar EF (2009) Sulfate attack on cementitious materials containing limestone filler—a review. Cem Concr Res 39:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. John DAS (1982) An unusal case of ground water sulphate attack on concrete. Cem Concr Res 12:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khave GJ (2013) TBM tunnelling in hydrogen sulfide gas bearing ground and its solutions. Geotech Geol Eng 31:1621–1638.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9669-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khave GJ (2014) Delineating subterranean water conduits using hydraulic testing and machine performance parameters in TBM tunnel post-grouting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larsen G (1966) Petrographic method used in the study of leaching of cement paste in concrete. Eng Geol 1:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lei M, Peng L, Shi C, Wang S (2013) Experimental study on the damage mechanism of tunnel structure suffering from sulfate attack. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 36:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu J, Vipulanandan C (2001) Evaluating a polymer concrete coating for protecting non-metallic underground facilities from sulfuric acid attack. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mays GC (1992) Durability of concrete structures: investigation, repair, protection. E & FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Mirmehrabi H, Ghafoori M, Lashkaripour G, Hassanpor J (2010) Hazards associated with tunnelling in gas bearing grounds—a case study of Aspar (lot 2 of Zagros) water transmission tunnel (in Persian). Sci Technol Environ Eng 93:51–66Google Scholar
  34. Mirmehrabi H, Ghafoori M, Lashkaripour G, Azali ST, Hassanpour J (2011) Hazards of mechanized tunnel excavation in H2S bearing ground in Aspar tunnel, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 66:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mittermayr F, Bauer C, Klammer D, Böttcher ME, Leis A, Escher P, Dietzel M (2012) Concrete under sulphate attack: an isotope study on sulphur sources. Isot Environ Health Stud 48:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohammed TU, Hamada H (2006) Corrosion of steel bars in concrete with various steel surface conditions. ACI Mater J 103:233–242Google Scholar
  37. Mohammed TU, Hamada H, Yamaji T (2004) Concrete after 30 years of exposure—part II: chloride ingress and corrosion of steel bars. ACI Mater J 101:13–18Google Scholar
  38. Moodi F, Ramezanianpour AA, Chenar QB, Esteghamati MZ (2015) Evaluation of sulfate damages in a tunnel concrete segments. In: Concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting IV: proceedings of the 4th international conference on concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting (ICCRRR-4), 5–7 October 2015, Leipzig, Germany, 2015. CRC Press, p 251Google Scholar
  39. Morsali M, Rezaei M (2017) Assessment of H2S emission hazards into tunnels: the Nosoud tunnel case study from Iran. Environ Earth Sci 76:227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mossmark F (2014) Prediction of groundwater chemistry in conjunction with underground construction—field studies and hydrochemical modelling. Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  41. Mostoufinejad D (2003) Concrete technology. Arkan Publication, IsfahanGoogle Scholar
  42. Nazemi M (2017) Personal photos gallery of geotechnical problems at the Zagros tunnelGoogle Scholar
  43. Nielsen P, Nicolai S, Darimont A, Kestemont X (2014) Influence of cement and aggregate type on thaumasite formation in concrete. Cem Concr Compos 53:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rahman MM, Bassuoni MT (2014) Thaumasite sulfate attack on concrete: mechanisms, influential factors and mitigation. Constr Build Mater 73:652–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rajesh R, Brindha K, Elango L (2015) Groundwater quality and its hydrochemical characteristics in a shallow weathered rock aquifer of Southern India Water Quality. Expo Health 7:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramezanianpour AA (2011) Concrete design (in Persian). Sanat-Gostar Publication, TehranGoogle Scholar
  47. Ramezanianpour AA, Zolfagharnasab A, Bahmanzadeh F, Ramezanianpour AM (2018) Assessment of high performance concrete containing mineral admixtures under sulfuric acid attack (in Persian). Amirkabir J Civil Eng 50:121–138Google Scholar
  48. Rezaee MR (2001) Petroleum geology (in Persian). Alavi Publication, TehranGoogle Scholar
  49. Romer M (2003a) Detachment of shotcrete due to long term interaction with ground water. Paper presented at the international seminar on the thaumasite form of sulfate attack of concreteGoogle Scholar
  50. Romer M (2003b) Steam locomotive soot and the formation of thaumasite in shotcrete. Cem Concr Compos 25:1173–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Romer M, Holzer L, Pfiffner M (2003) Swiss tunnel structures: concrete damage by formation of thaumasite. Cem Concr Compos 25:1111–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saglamoglu S (2012) Groundwater chemistry and its influence on the selection of construction materials—a review of four traffic tunnels in Sweden and evaluation of technical requirements. Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  53. Shahriar K, Sharifzadeh M, Khademi Hamidi J (2008) Geotechnical risk assessment based approach for rock TBM selection in difficult ground conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sims I, Huntley (née Hartshorn) SA (2004) The thaumasite form of sulfate attack-breaking the rules. Cem Concr Compos 26:837–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suleiman AR, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML (2014) Effect of surface treatment on durability of concrete exposed to physical sulfate attack. Constr Build Mater 73:674–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Talesnick M, Baker R (1999) Investigation of the failure of a concrete-lined steel pipe. Geotech Geol Eng 17:99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tali N, Lashkaripour GR, Ghafoori M, Hafezi Moghadas N (2014) Problems of mechanized tunnelling in gassy ground conditions—a case study of Nosoud water transmission tunnel. Int J Geogr Geol 3:101–113Google Scholar
  58. Tseng D-J, Tsai B-R, Chang L-C (2001) A case study on ground treatment for a rock tunnel with high groundwater ingression in Taiwan. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Usman M, Galler R (2013) Long-term deterioration of lining in tunnels. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 64:84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Usman M, Volderauer C, Gschwandtner G, Galler R (2011) Three dimensional load analysis of tunnel linings including weathering processes of the shotcrete. Berg Hüttenmännische Monatshefte (BHM) 156:487–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vik E et al (2000) Experiences from environmental risk management of chemical grouting agents used during construction of the Romeriksporten tunnel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 15:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang X, Liu X (2003) A strain-softening model for steel–concrete bond. Cem Concr Res 33:1669–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wells T, Melchers RE (2014) An observation-based model for corrosion of concrete sewers under aggressive conditions. Cem Concr Res 61–62:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wells T, Melchers RE (2015) Modelling concrete deterioration in sewers using theory and field observations. Cem Concr Res 77:82–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhiqiang Z, Mansoor YA (2013) Evaluating the strength of corroded tunnel lining under limiting corrosion conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 38:464–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ebrahim Fathi Salmi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zohreh Soltani Asadi
    • 1
  • Massoud Bayati
    • 1
  • Mostafa Sharifzadeh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Mining & Metallurgical EngineeringCurtin University, Western Australian School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering (WASEM)KalgoorlieAustralia

Personalised recommendations