Technological solutions for excavation works in the process of implementation of the “top-down” approach

Introduction. 

Underground space development in the course of infill construction in confined spaces of megalopolises is a promising development trend in construction. To save the workspace, the “top-down” approach can be used. In this case, a substantial portion of the underground work consists in the soil development and loosening under the protection of beams, which is relevant for frozen soils in Central Russia. The analysis of regulatory documents and the studies, conducted in this area, has proven that there are no methodological recommendations on the arrangement of soil excavation in confined spaces. The purpose of the study is to analyze and systematize current methods of soil development and loosening and to evaluate their applicability in confined spaces.

Materials and methods. 

The authors consider widely used excavation techniques (mechanical, hydro-mechanical, and explosive ones) and less widely spread soil development methods (electric pulse and thermal ones). The expediency of excavation mini-technologies, designed for works in confined spaces, is emphasized. Attachable hydraulic and electromagnetic machinery, used to loosen soils, is analyzed. The analysis of these methods shows their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the applicability of the “top-down” technique.

Results. 

Combinations of machines designated for soil excavation and loosening within the framework of the “top-down” technique are made to further estimate the engineering and economic performance and their comparative analysis. The authors propose combinations of excavating machines that represent lightweight or mini-items having mounted soil loosening and excavation mini-machines.

Conclusions. 

The practical value of the study consists in the analysis of available methods of soil excavation and loosening and the assessment of their applicability to the confined conditions of construction of substructures of buildings using the top-down technology, which is relevant for Central Russia. The authors made combinations of machines whose operation is mostly based on mechanical methods. The authors suggest considering the use of mini-machines and attachments.

1. Lebedev I.O., Nagmanova A.N. “Top-Down” technology is an effective way to develop modern cities. Young scientists — development of the National Technological Initiative (search). 2021; 1:209-210. (rus.).

2. Lebedev I.O., Kirillov A.I., Chugunov A.S. “Top Down” technology is a modern technological solution in construction. Bulletin of the Student Scientific Society. 2018; 9(2):142-144. (rus.).

3. Tkachenko A.I. Construction technology by the “Top&Down” method. Investments, construction, real estate as a material basis for modernization and innovative development of the economy : materials of the VIII International Scientific and Practical Conference. 2018; 821-823. (rus.).

4. Shalenny V.T. Development of technology of underground multi-storey frame construction by top-down method with steel and concrete piles-columns improved design. Construction and Technogenic Safety. 2018; 12(64):57-62. (rus.).

5. Shalennyy V.T. The concept of organizational and technological scheme of concreting ferro-concrete overlappings multi-storey underground parts of buildings by “Top-Down”. Construction and Technogenic Safety. 2018; 13(65):99-106. (rus.).

6. Olejnik P.P., Maaruf A.H. The effectiveness ofthe “Top-Down” method in the construction of monolithic buildings. Construction Production. 2020; 3:53-60. DOI: 10.54950/26585340_2020_3_53 (rus.).

7. Buchatskii G.V., Zaitsev A.N., Chernyakov E.V., Bartoshevich I.K., Konovalov P.A., Nikiforova N.S. Experience with construction of underground sections of buildings by the “from top down” scheme. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 2001; 4:25-28. (rus.).

8. Zuev S.S., Makovetsky O.A. Experience in using the “Up – Down” method when constructing the underground and aboveground parts of the building. Housing Construction. 2019; 9:24-30. DOI: 10.31659/0044-4472-2019-9-24-30 (rus.).

9. Bidov T.K., Konovalov V.S., Baysyakina K.S. Optimization of processes associated with the production of earthworks during the construction of a building using the “Up-Down” method. Izvestiya Tula State University. Technical Sciences. 2020; 5:246-254. (rus.).

10. Zigangirova L.I., Galiev I.Kh., Ibragimov R.A., Shakirzyanov F.R. Optimization of engineering solutions used to develop the underground spaces of existing buildings. Vestnik MGSU [Monthly Journal on Construction and Architecture]. 2022; 17(11):1528-1536. DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2022.11.1528-1536 (rus.).

11. Firtseva A.A., Lisovskaya K.Y., Yankov­skiy F.I. The formation of excavator car set based on the mass service theory. New ideas of the new century: materials of the international scientific conference FAD TOGU. 2014; 3:398-404. (rus.).

12. Parente M., Cortez P., Correia A.G. An evolutionary multi-objective optimization system for earthworks. Expert Systems with Applications. 2015; 42(19):6674-6685. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.051

13. Ananin V.G., Emilov A.B. About profitability of application, advantages and disadvantages of mini excavators in industry and national economy. Symbol of Science: International Scientific Journal. 2016; 6-1(18):36-41. (rus.).

14. Akhmadulina N.R., Galiev I.K., Ibragimov R.A. Rationing of mini-excavators’ work. Expert: Theory and Practice. 2022; 4(19):19-25. DOI: 10.51608/26867818_2022_4_19 (rus.).

15. Deshmukh S., Raina A.K., Murthy V.M.S.R., Trivedi R., Vajre R. Roadheader — A comprehensive review. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technolo­gy. 2020; 95:103148. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.103148

16. Shipilova N.A., Pogodina P.V., Ishchuk Yu.P. Features of the development of the pit hydromechanized way. Electronic network polythematic journal “Scientific works of KubSTU”. 2020; 8:1053-1060. (rus.).

17. Grishin A.N. Method for increase in quality of blasting operations during tunneling. Transport Construction. 2016; 11:27-30. (rus.).

18. Liu D., Lu W., Yang J., Gao J., Yan P., Hu S., Yao C. Relationship between cracked-zone radius and dominant frequency of vibration in tunnel blasting. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2022; 160:105249. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2022.105249

19. Anan’ev V.P., Alekseev V.N. Thermal destruction of rocks. Introduction of Modern Structures and Advanced Technologies in the Track Economy. 2012; 5(5):(5):28-31. (rus.).

20. Edygenov E.K. Future development of mechanical rocks destruction methods without blasting. Complex Use of Mineral Materials. 2018; 4(307):6-10. DOI: 10.31643/2018/6445.24 (rus.).

21. Potokin A.S., Klimov A.A. Efficiency comparative analysis of electric pulse destruction of different types rocks of the Murmansk region. Proce­edings of the Kola Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2020; 11(7):(19):92-97. DOI: 10.37614/2307-5252.2020.7.19.012 (rus.).

22. Adam A.M. Rector of TPI A.A. Vorobyov — inventor of the electric pulse method of rock destruction. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. 2013; 322(2):191-196. (rus.).

23. Yushkov A.Y. Electropulse destruction of rocks. Modern Scientific Researches and Innovations. 2015; 4-2(48):67-71. (rus.).