A Cloud Model-Based Risk Assessment Methodology for Tunneling-Induced Damage to Existing Tunnel

Table 1

Classification of risk level for assessment index.

Evaluation index	Risk evaluation level
	I	II	III	IV	V
C1	>30	[20, 35]	[10, 22]	[3, 12]	<4
C2	[70, 90]	[50, 75]	[30, 55]	[20, 35]	[0, 25]
C3	[80, 100]	[60, 80]	[40, 60]	[20, 40]	[0, 20]
C4	<0.6	[0.5, 1.1]	[0.9, 1.3]	[1.2, 1.6]	>1.4
C5	I [80, 100]	II [60, 80]	III [40, 60]	IV [20, 40]	V [0, 20]
C6	<5	[4, 10]	[8, 15]	[14, 20]	>18
C7	>60	[20, 30]	[15, 20]	[10, 15]	<10
C8	TBM [80, 100]	Double side drift [60, 80]	CD or CRD [40, 60]	Bench cut [20, 40]	Full section [0, 20]
C9	The hydrogeological condition is good and there is no bad geological condition. The groundwater level is below the newly built tunnel [80, 100]	The hydrogeological condition is good and there is no bad geological condition. The groundwater level is low [60, 80]	The hydrogeological condition is normal and there is no obvious bad geological condition. The groundwater level is low [40, 60]	The geological condition is poor (expansive soil, frozen soil, collapsible loess, soft soil, etc.). The groundwater level is high [20, 40]	The geological condition is poor (expansive soil, frozen soil, collapsible loess, soft soil, etc.). The groundwater is rich and distribution is shallow [0, 20]