Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
www.elsevier.com/locate/undsp

Air flow and gas dispersion in the forced ventilation of a road

tunnel during construction
Yong Fang a,⇑, Zhigang Yao a, Shuai Lei b
a
Key Laboratory of Transportation Tunnel Engineering, Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

Received 12 February 2018; received in revised form 8 July 2018; accepted 27 July 2018
Available online 13 September 2018

Abstract

Forced ventilation is typically used in the construction of tunnels since it is an economical method to provide high amounts of fresh
air. Air velocity and pollutant concentration near the work face are determined by the ventilation arrangement. In the study, field mea-
surement of air velocity was performed, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models were constructed to investigate airflow near the
work face and predict the gas distribution in a gas tunnel construction. The effects of the distance between the air duct exit and the work
face (L1) were evaluated by analyzing the flow field and pollutant concentration. The evaluation shows that the ventilation efficiency
improves if L1 does not exceed 15 m in a road tunnel with full-face excavation. With respect to a road tunnel with benching excavation,
the effects of bench length (L2) are analyzed, and the results of the analysis indicate that ventilation efficiency is optimal when L2 = 5 m
and L2 = 10 m and the air-duct diameter corresponds to 1.6 m. The CFD results fit the field measurement significantly well, and the cur-
rent ventilation system in the construction exhibits a relatively high efficiency. The findings of the study aid practitioners in optimizing
ventilation efficiency.
Ó 2018 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Tunnel construction; Forced ventilation; Ventilation arrangement; Fluid field; Hazardous gases; Numerical simulation

1 Introduction surrounding rocks contain hazardous gases such as

Several pollutants exist in a tunnel when it is under con-
struction because construction produces pollutants and
natural airflow is absent. A few harmful materials are pro-
duced by processes such as drilling, blasting, and trans-
portation. For example, an internal combustion engine
releases carbon dioxide (Likar & Čadež, 2000), fumes are
generated from blasting (Tornoa, Ulecia, & Allende,
2013) and dust occurs due to shotcrete and other working
procedures (Ren, Wang, & Cooper, 2014). In a few cases,
⇑ Corresponding author at: Room 410, Key Laboratory of Transporta-
tion Tunnel Engineering, Jiulidi Campus, Southwest Jiaotong University,
No. 111, North 1st Section of Second Ring Road, Jinniu District,
Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China.
E-mail address: fy980220@swjtu.cn (Y. Fang).
methane or hydrogen sulfide (Elioff, Smirnoff, Ryan,
Putnam, & Ghadiali, 1995; Tang, Chen, & Zhou, 2011).
Generally, dust is effectively eliminated by spraying water
in the road tunnel. However, methane (CH4) and hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) are critical factors in the construction of a gas
tunnel. With respect to worker safety and smooth construc-
tion, harmful gases must be removed from the tunnel via a
ventilation system (Hemphill, 2013; Maidl, Thewes, &
Maidl, 2014; Parra, Villafruela, Castro, & Méndez, 2006).
The ventilation system is an extremely important part of
tunnel construction (Lowndes, Yang, Jobling, & Yates,
2006; Toraño, Torno, Menendez, Gent, & Velasco, 2009).
Accidents that occur during tunnel construction and are
caused by the defects in ventilation systems offer valuable
lessons. Examples of the aforementioned accidents include

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.07.002
2467-9674/Ó 2018 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
the Yanjiaozai railway tunnel with more than 70 fatalities
in 1959, the Paotaishan railway tunnel with 13 fatalities
in 1994, and the Dongjiashan highway tunnel with 44 fatal-
ities in 2005. Therefore, ventilation is an extremely impor-
tant part of drill and blast tunneling (Wang et al., 2009).
Nowadays, ventilation systems in tunnel constructions
mainly use forced ventilation (Fig. 1(a)) for the purpose
of both economy and efficiency. Toraño et al. (2009) sug-
gests that the exhausting ventilation system is less efficient
than a forced ventilation system.
With respect to extra-long twin-tunnels, recirculation
systems (Fig. 1(b)) are introduced to solve the problem of
air-duct leakage, and they include limitations with respect
to the length of air ducts (Onder & Cevik, 2008; Onder,
Sarac, & Cevik, 2006). Highway tunnels in Micangshan
(2
13.8 km), Erlangshan (2
13.4 km), and Nibashan
(2
10 km) use recirculation systems. This type of ventila-
tion provides a high amount of fresh air at a low cost
(Maidl et al., 2014).
Several studies examine the pollutant dispersion and
flow field near the work face of mining tunnels.
Hargreaves and Lowndes (2007) investigated the airflows
in a tunnel during continuous mining by using a CFD
model and a full-scale experiment. Diego, Torno,
Toraño, Menéndez, and Gent (2011) revealed the changes
in pressure in the ventilation system of a dead-end tunnel.
Toraño, Torno, Menéndez, and Gent (2011) examined a
mixed ventilation system and determined the flow field
and dust concentration. Fang, Peng, Zhao, and Zhou
(2014) revealed that a good dilution of hazardous gas
was obtained near the work face when an air duct exit
was attached to the shoulder. However, there is a paucity
of studies on issues including the effects of the excavation
method and location of the air duct on the flow field and
pollutant concentration.
The aim of the present study involves analyzing air
velocity near the work face while optimizing the ventilation
arrangement and predicting the distribution of possible
hazardous gases, such as H2S and CH4, in the construction
of Huayinshan tunnel. A numerical model is developed to
investigate the flow field and field measurements are per-
formed to validate the result. Possible hazardous gases
are also considered by analyzing the geologic information
and numerical simulation, and the hazardous gas
Fig. 1. Ventilation system for tunnel construction: (a) Forced system; (b) recirculation system.
169
concentration in the tunnel is predicted. The results can
aid in preventing gas issues if hazardous gases are
encountered.
2 Field measurement
The Huayinshan twin tunnels (8 159.5 m average) are
expressway tunnels in Sichuan Province, China. They are
classified as gas tunnels because they cross a mined-out
coal area, and a high amount of gas is present in the sur-
rounding rocks. Two types of excavation methods are used
in the construction. Full-face excavation (Side view in
Fig. 2(a)) is used when the surrounding rock is identified
as class-Ⅱ or class-III, and benching excavation is used in
the other parts (Side view in Fig. 2(b)). A 1.6-m diameter
air duct is used to deliver fresh air to the work face through
an axial flow fan. The ventilation arrangement of the tun-
nel construction is shown in Fig. 3. The required airflow Q
of the Huayinshan tunnel construction is designed as corre-
sponding to 2 340 m3/min. The airflow velocity vin of the
air duct is computed as 19.4 m/s.
In order to understand the pattern of airflow near the
work face, field measurement is performed both in full-
face excavation and benching excavation. In full-face
excavation, the flow velocity in two cross-sections is mea-
sured. The distances of the cross-sections to the work face
are 20 m (without secondary lining) and 70 m (with sec-
ondary lining), and they are termed as Sections 1 and
2, respectively (Fig. 3(a)). In benching excavation, the
flow velocity in three cross-sections was measured. The
distances of the cross-sections to the work face corre-
spond to 10 m (upper bench), 20 m (invert), and 50 m
(with secondary lining), and they are termed as Sections
3–5, respectively (Fig. 3(b)). The measuring tool used cor-
responds to a hot wire anemometer that exhibits a reso-
lution of 0.01 m/s. Given the complex geometry and
flow field, a monitoring point for a cross-section is evi-
dently not sufficient. Thus, every cross-section is divided
into several parts, and there is a monitor point in each
part that is considered as representative of the specific
part. Figure 2(d) shows the monitoring points in cross-
sections 3 and 4, and the arrangements of monitoring
points in other cross-sections are similar to both the
aforementioned cross-sections. At each point, a 10-min
170 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179

Fig. 2. Sketch of field measurement. (a) Full face excavation; (b) benching excavation; (c) sectional view; (d) monitoring points in Sections 3 and 4.

recording is performed at 15 s intervals, and the velocity 3 Numerical model

at the point corresponds to the average of the records
(Eq. (1)). The expression is as follows: 3.1 Governing equations
Pn
j¼1 vj In the study, the air considered as an incompressible
Vi ¼ ð1Þ
n Newtonian fluid, and heat exchange is not considered.
We solve the momentum equation shown in Eq. (2), and
where Vi denotes the average air velocity in part i, n the turbulence equations shown in Eqs. (3) and (4) to
denotes the number of tests in 10 min, and v denotes the obtain the air flow. The distribution of pollutants is deter-
test value. mined by solving the convection diffusion Eq. (5) based on
In field tests, the test of the average wind speed of the air flow velocity as follows:
section is potentially not very accurate. It is not reason- @vi
able to replace the average wind speed of the whole area ¼0 ð2Þ
@xi
with the wind speed of a certain point. However, in a  
@   @ 2
real tunneling operation, the airflow disturbance is extre- qvi vj ¼  p þ qk
mely frequent and must be completed within a limited @xi @xi 3
  
time of stable airflow. Therefore, the proposed method @ @vi @vj
þ ðl þ lt Þ þ i ðjÞ ¼ 1;2; 3 ð3Þ
is adopted. @xi @xj @xi
 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179 171

Fig. 3. Ventilation arrangement of the construction.

where vi denotes the absolute fluid velocity (m/s) compo- 3.2 Model description
nent in Cartesian coordinates xi and xj (i, j = 1, 2, 3) (m);
and q denotes the density (kg/m3); Three-dimensional numerical models are constructed
based on the Huayinshan tunnel as shown in Fig. 2. The
 p denotes the piezo metric pressure (Pa); full-face method and the benching method are considered
 k denotes the turbulence kinetic energy (m2/s2); in the numerical simulation by ignoring the influence of
 l denotes the laminar dynamic viscosity of the fluid loaders and trucks as they move along the tunnel. The
(Pas); study considers different distances from the air duct to
 lt denotes the turbulent dynamic viscosity (Pas). the work face (L1) in the full-face excavation and different
  bench lengths (L2) in the benching excavation. The length
@ @ lt @e of the models is 200 m. Additionally, L represents the dis-
ðqvi k Þ ¼  þ G  qe ð4Þ
@xi @xi rk @xi tance between the secondary lining and the work face, and
  a value in the range of approximately 50100 m is recom-
@ @ lt @e e
ðqvi eÞ ¼  þ ðc1 G  c2 qeÞ ð5Þ mended. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software
@xi @xi re @xi k
 FLUENT was used to simulate pollutant dispersion in
@vi @v @vj the tunnel ventilation system. Figure 4 shows two of the
where G is expressed as follows: G ¼ lt @x j
þ @xji @xi
;
three-dimensional models and their meshing of tunnel ven-
c1 , c2 , cl , rk , and re denote the empirical coefficients tilation with the excavation of the full-face method and
with values corresponding to c1 = 1.44, c2 = 1.92, benching method. The models are meshed with a struc-
cl = 0.09, rk = 1.00, and re = 1.30, respectively. The tured grid, and the mesh number is approximately 2 mil-
expression is as follows: lion. The air flow Reynolds number in the air duct is
2.12
106. There are 10 boundary layers near the wall,
@ ðqcn Þ @ ðqcn Þ @ 2 ðqcn Þ
þ vi ¼ Dn þ Sn ð6Þ and ds = 0.001 m.
@t @xi @x2i

where cn, Dn, and Sn denote the volume concentration, dif-
fusion coefficient, and production rate of component n,
respectively.
In the numerical simulation, pollutants (CH4 and H2S)
are assumed as generated only in the work face, and thus
the production rates of pollutants in the airflow are consid-
ered as zero.
3.3 Boundary and initial conditions
Humidity and heat transfer were not considered in the
model. The outlet of the air duct is assumed as the
velocity-inlet boundary with a uniform velocity vin = Q/A
where Q denotes the required airflow of tunnel construc-
tion (m3/s) and A denotes the outlet section area of the
172 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179

Fig. 4. 3D model and meshing of the ventilation system near the work face: (a) Full face excavation; (b) benching excavation.

air duct (m2). The pressure-outlet boundary is applied to
the outlet of the model with atmospheric pressure. Wall
boundaries are applied to the tunnel wall, work face, and
air duct surface without slippage and mass exchange. The
density of air is assumed as 1.225 kg/m3. The operating
temperature is 20 °C. The roughness of the tunnel surface
is 0.36 mm.
4 Fluid field analysis
4.1 Full-face excavation
With respect to the full-face excavation, the distance
between the air duct exit and the work face L1 is a key fac-
tor that significantly affects the fluid field near the face. A
reasonable L1 makes the ventilation system economical
and the construction safer. Numerical models with different
L1 values (L1 = 5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, 25 m, and 30 m) are
constructed.
Fresh air comes out from the air duct and is directed to
the work face, thereby removing pollutants from the tun-
nel. The flow field near the work face is complex. Figure 5
shows the velocity vector maps of air flow near the work
face when L1 = 10 m in the horizontal plane that is 2 m
from the ground. Zone A forms due to the jet of fresh
air. When L1 gets longer, it becomes bigger and the velocity
of fresh air decreases when it reaches the work face. Thus,
L1 should be sufficiently short. Zone B is where fresh air
passes the work face. In the zone, the hazardous gases
are diluted rapidly when they emit from the work face,
and thus the flow velocity in the zone significantly affects
ventilation efficiency. An eddy exists between the jet of
fresh air and the polluted air, and this is termed as zone
C where the flow velocity is relatively low and it is not pos-
sible to directly remove the hazardous gases. The numerical
results indicate that increases in L1 weakens the flow veloc-
ity in zone B and widens the ranges of zone B and zone C.
When L1 = 5 m, flow velocity in zone B is approximately
8~10 m/s in most areas. However, when L1 increases to
30 m, the velocity reduces to less than 5 m/s, and zone B
and zone C correspond to the highest in all cases. This is
unfavorable for construction safety since the hazardous
gases near the work face cannot be easily diluted and
removed.
The magnitude and distribution of flow velocity on the
work face at different values of L1 are shown in Fig. 6.
High flow velocity occurs in front of the exit of the air duct,
and low flow velocity occurs at the opposite side of the air
duct. When L1 is less than 15 m, the flow velocity in most
of the work face is approximately between 4 m/s and

Fig. 5. Air flow near the work face.

 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
Fig. 6. Flow velocity distribution on the work face: (a) L1 = 5 m; (b) L1 = 10 m; (c) L1 = 15 m; (d) L1 = 20 m.
12 m/s. With increases in L1, the flow velocity drops signif-
icantly. When L1 exceeds 20 m, the flow velocity in most
areas is less than 4 m/s, and a large area in the face exhibits
an even lower velocity of 2 m/s or less. Table 1 shows the
relationship between L1 and the average flow velocity on
the work face. The average velocity decreases slightly when
L1 increases from 5 m to 15 m. The average velocity drops
significantly from 15 m to 20 m. It is recommended that the
parameter should not exceed 15 m given that high wind
speed is favorable for the dilution of hazardous gases.
Chinese regulations on gas tunnel construction establish
that the velocity of air in a gas tunnel should not be less
than 0.5 m/s, and regions where the velocity is under the
value can be considered as dead zones. The size of dead
Table 1
Average flow velocity on work face.
L1 5 10 15 20 25
Average flow velocity (m/s) 7.93 7.18 6.42 3.73 3.23
Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of dead zones.
Fig. 8. Flow velocity distribution at the lower bench: (a) L2 = 5 m; (b) L2 = 10 m; (c) L2 = 15 m; (d) L2 = 20 m.
173
zones can act as an index to evaluate the efficiency of the
ventilation system. Figure 7 shows the area percentages
of dead zones in cross-sections near the work face with dif-
ferent values of L1. When L1 does not exceed 20 m, the
dead zones are relatively small, and the dead zones are
the smallest and most stable when L1 = 10 m and
L1 = 15 m. From this point, it is recommended that L1
should not exceed 20 m and values of 10 m and 15 m are
considered optimal.
4.2 Benching excavation
Two important factors significantly affect the flow field
during benching excavation, namely the distance between
the exit of the air duct and heading face (L1) and bench
length (L1). Two types of L1 (L1 = 5 m, 10 m) and six types
of L2 (L2 = 5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, 30 m, 50 m) are consid-
ered in the simulation. When compared to full-face excava-
30 tion, the flow field is significantly more complex during the
3.33 benching excavation. Fresh air comes out from the air duct
and is directed to the heading face where it dilutes the haz-
ardous gases exiting at the heading face and subsequently
passes through the upper bench to the lower bench and
removes the hazardous gases from the tunnel. On the head-
ing face, the highest flow velocity corresponds to 15 m/s
when L1 = 5 m and L2 = 5 m. In most areas, the flow veloc-
ity exceeds 6 m/s, and the average velocity is 8.9 m/s. With
increases in L2 from 5 m to 50 m, the flow velocity drops
slightly. The highest flow velocity drops to 12 m/s, and
average velocity drops to 7.5 m/s. When L1 changes from
5 m to 10 m, the flow velocity also drops. The flow velocity
is higher on the heading face when compared to that in full-
face excavation.
The upper bench exhibits a smaller cross-sectional area,
and thus the flow velocity is higher in this part. The ground
sags when it reaches the invert where the secondary lining
wall is under construction, and thus the flow velocity near
174 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179

the invert is significantly lower (especially on the lower
bench work face). Figure 8 shows the flow velocity distribu-
tion near the invert with the changes in L2 when L1 = 10 m.
High velocity areas are distributed in the upper part of the
cross-section while the lower part (i.e., the lower bench
work face) exhibits a low velocity. In most of the areas in
the upper part, the flow velocity exceeds 1 m/s with the
highest flow velocity corresponding to approximately
8 m/s. Although the flow velocity in most areas of the
lower part is less than 1 m/s, approximately one-fourth of
the area is below 0.5 m/s. The flow velocity decreases with
increases in L2. When L2 = 20 m, the highest flow velocity
drops to 3 m/s, and most of the area in the lower part exhi-
bits a velocity of below 0.5 m/s, and this can barely satisfy
the requirements for construction work. Thus, places near
the invert possess a significantly higher chance of the gath-
ering of hazardous gases, and thus the invert requires more
attention.
Figure 9 shows the velocity vector map of airflow in
the horizontal plane that is 2 m from the ground. Air-
flow passes straight through above the invert, and only
a very small amount of the airflow passes into the invert.
This implies that the flow velocity in the invert is low
(below 1 m/s in most areas of the invert). Additionally,
an eddy exists, and thus it is more difficult to dilute
the hazardous gases. With increases in L2, the airflow
in the upper bench is more horizontal (especially when
L2 exceeds 20 m), and there is almost no vertical flow
when airflow passes through above the invert, and thus
the flow velocity near the invert is below 0.5 m/s. The
bench length L2 should not be excessively long. Specifi-
cally, when it exceeds 20 m, a local fan should be present
to provide fresh air for the lower bench.
With respect to tunnel construction, it is better to ensure
that the flow velocity near the work face exceeds 1 m/s to
provide sufficient fresh air and dilute pollutants. Figure 10
shows that L2 varies from 5 m to 50 m when L1 = 5 m and
L1 = 10 m. With the changes in distance to the heading
face, the area percentage of flow velocity is below 1 m/s
in the cross-sections. Given that the flow velocity near
the heading face always exceeds 1 m/s, places near the
lower bench work face are the key, and thus only cross-
sections at the invert are examined. As shown in Fig. 10,
the flow velocity increases when the bench is shorter.

Fig. 9. Flow velocity distribution at the lower bench.

Fig. 10. Percentage of area in which the flow velocity is below 1 m/s in the cross-section: (a) L1 = 5 m; (b) L1 = 10 m.
 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
4.3 Validation of CFD results
With respect to the full-face method, L1 is approxi-
mately 15 m during the testing period in the construction
of the tunnel. Thus, a CFD result for L1 = 15 m was con-
sidered to compare it with field measurement. Figure 11
shows the correlation between the airflow velocity of each
monitor point (vi) in Sections 1 and 2 between the CFD
result and field measurement in the full-face method. The
correlation was calculated by using CFD values as the X-
axis and tested values as the Y-axis. Most of the tested val-
ues are slightly lower than CFD values although the corre-
lations between the two types of values are reasonable. The
R2 coefficient is 0.784 1 in Section 1, and 0.897 9 in
Section 2.
With respect to the benching method, the CFD result of
L1 = 10 m, L2 = 15 m was considered and compared with
the field measurement. The correlations of the airflow
velocity of each monitor point (vi) in Sections 3–5 between
the CFD result and field measurement in the benching
method are shown in Fig. 11. The R2 coefficients in Sec-
tions 3–5 correspond to 0.803, 0.816 6, and 0.897 9,
respectively.
Given the high-speed air that comes out from the air
duct, places close to the work face exhibit a high airflow
velocity and significant turbulence. Thus, the correlations
in Sections 1 and 3 are slightly weak. When the distance
to the work face increases, the flow velocity decreases
and airflow is more advect, and the correlations in Sections
2 and 5 are significantly higher. The correlation increases
when the distance to the work face increases. Generally,
Fig. 11. Correlation of airflow velocity between the CFD value and field measurement.
175
the correlations between the two types of values are not
extremely significant although the CFD results are accept-
able given the measurement errors due to field test
conditions.
5 Prediction of pollutant concentration
Hazardous gas is not encountered in the construction of
the tunnel up to date although there is a significant possi-
bility that the gas will appear while crossing the mined-
out coal area. We use geologic information collected in
an earlier investigation to predict the pollutant concentra-
tion if any gases appear. A numerical simulation is per-
formed to determine the distribution of possible gases
and determine the optimal ventilation arrangement. Two
types of hazardous gases are considered in the simulation,
namely methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). We
add sources of CH4 and H2S to the models to evenly gen-
erate hazardous gases on the work face. The methane and
hydrogen sulfide fluxes at the work face are assumed to
exhibit average values corresponding to 0.167 7 m3/s and
1.302 6
104 m3/s, respectively. Regulations recommend
that the CH4 mass fraction should not exceed 0.5%, and the
H2S concentration does not exceed 10 mg/m3. Places where
the hazardous gas concentration exceeds the aforemen-
tioned values are defined as high-concentration zones.
5.1 Full-face excavation
The hazardous gases are again assumed to appear only
at the work face. When fresh air reaches the work face, it
176 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
dilutes the hazardous gases. The hazardous gases are
diluted quickly when the flow velocity is high, and they
accumulate otherwise. Thus, places near the work face
where velocity is low exhibits a high concentration of haz-
ardous gases. This is supported by our results from CFD
modeling, and this indicates that areas in front of the air
duct exhibit a very low concentration (i.e., close to zero)
on the work face while the concentration of hazardous
gases is high in the opposite side of the air duct. Increases
in the distance from the air duct increase the gas concentra-
tion gets. The highest concentration of CH4 is 2%, and this
located in the bottom left corner. The highest concentra-
tion of H2S is 19.3 mg/m3 and is located in the same place.
The distribution of hazardous gases on the work face
changes when L1 varies from 5 m to 30 m. We consider
CH4 as an example, and the area percentage of the high-
concentration zone is approximately 7% when L1 does
not exceed 15 m. The number increases rapidly to 13.7%
when L1 reaches 20 m. With respect to L1 = 25 m and
L1 = 30 m, the numbers correspond to 21.4% and 21.6%
respectively. This is because the velocity of fresh air that
reaches the work face is low when L1 is excessively high,
and thus it is not possible to effectively bring out the haz-
ardous gases. Hence, they accumulate easily. In 4.4% of
the area, the CH4 mass fraction exceeds 1% when
L1 = 30 m.
With increases in the distance to the work face, the haz-
ardous gases are distributed more evenly, and thus the
highest concentration is reduced while the lowest concen-
tration increases. The difference between the highest and
lowest concentrations is less than 0.1% when the distance
to the work face exceeds 45 m. When the distance to the
work face is less than 80 m, the opposite side of the air duct
in the cross-section exhibits a higher concentration of CH4.
It is necessary to focus on the high-concentration zone.
A high-concentration zone always exists although it is the
size of the zone that matters. A small high-concentration
zone is acceptable although measures should be considered
if it is sufficiently high to affect construction work. The
results of pollutant concentration analysis indicate that in
full-face excavation, the high-concentration zone is located
near the work face and around the corner opposite to the
side where the air duct is attached. Increases in the distance
Fig. 12. Distribution of the high-concentration zone: (a) CH4 mass fraction exceeding 0.5%; (b) H2S concentration exceeding 3 mg/m3.
to the corner increases the concentration. In full-face
excavation, areas where the H2S concentration exceeds
10 mg/m3 are barely observed, and thus we consider
6 mg/m3 to determine the distribution pattern of the
high-concentration zone. Figure 12 shows the locations
of high-concentration zones when L1 = 5 m. The volume
of the high-concentration zone changes when L1 varies
from 5 m to 30 m. With respect to CH4, the volume ranges
from 3.39 m3 (L1 = 10 m) to 13.61 m3 (L1 = 30 m). Table 2
shows the relationship between volume of the high-
concentration zone and L1. The least volume of the high-
concentration zone is observed when L1 = 10 m. When
L1 = 5 m, the flow velocity on the work face is the highest,
and thus it appears that the volume of the high-
concentration zone will also correspond to a minimum.
However, the volume is significantly high because the
velocity is not well distributed.
In the outlet of the model, the average CH4 mass frac-
tion is 0.27% while the average H2S concentration is
2.64 mg/m3. Hazardous gas is distributed better when the
concentration is closer to the average concentration. Areas
where the CH4 mass fraction exceeds 0.3% and H2S con-
centration exceeds 3 mg/m3 are used to measure the haz-
ardous gas distribution. In a cross-section, the hazardous
gas is considered as distributed better when the high con-
centration area is smaller, and it is considered as well dis-
tributed if the aforementioned area is absent. Figure 13
shows the effect of varying L1 from 5 m to 30 m on the per-
centage area of CH4 mass fraction exceeding 0.3% and H2S
concentration exceeding 3 mg/m3 in the cross-sections. The
lower the lines, the better the hazardous gases are dis-
tributed. Additionally, L1 = 10 m and L1 = 15 m are better
options because hazardous gases are diluted more quickly
and distributed more evenly.
5.2 Benching excavation
With respect to the benching excavation, hazardous
gases appear at two places (i.e., the heading face and lower
bench workface), and thus the aforementioned places cor-
respond to the focus of the model.
On the heading face, the front of the air duct exhibits a
lower pollutant concentration in a manner similar to full-
 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179 177

Table 2
Volume of high-concentration zone.
L1(m) 5 10 15 20 25 30
3
CH4 mass fraction above 0.5% (m ) 10.56 3.39 3.99 6.03 12.17 13.61
H2S concentration above 4 ppm (m3) 2.71 0.99 1.52 3.07 4.04 5.79

Fig. 13. Percentage of the region in the cross-section: (a) CH4 mass fraction exceeding 0.3%; (b) H2S concentration exceeding 3 mg/m3.

face excavation. When compared to full-face excavation,
the sectional area is smaller although the airflow stays the
same, and thus the concentration is lower. When
L1 = 10 m, the highest CH4 concentration is 0.87%, and
the highest H2S concentration is 10.5 mg/m3. The high-
concentration zone near the heading face is small, and
high-concentration zones are almost absent in a few cases.
Hazardous gases also flow out at the lower bench work
face. However, in contrast to the heading face, direct air-
flow to the lower bench work face is absent, and thus haz-
ardous gases cannot be effectively diluted. When L1 = 10 m
and L2 = 5 m, the highest CH4 concentration area is
located at the upper left. When the height increases, the
concentration decreases, and the concentration in the
upper part exceeds that in the lower part. The highest
CH4 mass fraction is 2.4%, and the mass fraction exceeds
1% in most areas. The CH4 mass fraction increases with
increases in L2. When L2 = 20 m, the highest CH4 mass
fraction is 3.0%. When L1 changes to 5 m, the CH4 mass
fraction also increases, and the distribution pattern is not
that evident. Places near the sidewall on both sides exhibit
a higher concentration of H2S with the highest concentra-
tion at 25.2 mg/m3 and a concentration exceeding
10 mg/m3 in most areas. With increases in L2, the H2S con-
centration increases. When L2 = 20 m, the highest H2S
concentration is 72 mg/m3. The H2S concentration reduces
when L1 changes to 5 m.
High-concentration zones are mainly located in the
lower bench. Figure 14(a) shows the CH4 high-
concentration zone when L1 = 10 m and L2 = 10 m. Given
that the air flow near the work face is upwards (see Fig. 9)
and the density of CH4 is less than that of air, the majority
of the zone is located in the upper part. The volume of the
zone is 20.3 m3. With increases in L2, the volume of the
high-concentration zone increases mainly in the upper part
and develops along with the direction of airflow. When L2

Fig. 14. Distribution of the high-concentration zone: (a) CH4 mass fraction exceeding 0.5%; (b) H2S concentration exceeding 10 mg/m3.
178 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
Table 3
Volume of high concentration zone (L1 = 10 m).
L2 (m) 5 10
3
CH4 mass fraction above 0.5% (m ) 37.50 20.33
H2S concentration above 6 ppm (m3) 4.80 13.11
reaches 50 m, the volume is 368.4 m3, and the high-
concentration zone almost covers the invert. When
L2 = 5 m, the high concentration zone is located at the bot-
tom as opposed to the upper part, and the volume is
37.5 m3. When L1 changes to 5 m, the volume increases,
and the lowest volume is 45.8 m3 (L2 = 10 m), and the
highest volume is 376.7 m3 (L2 = 50 m). Table 3 shows
the manner in which L2 influences the volume of the CH4
high concentration zone. Figure 14(b) shows the H2S
high-concentration zone when L1 = 10 m and L2 = 10 m.
The location is almost identical to that of CH4 although
the H2S high-concentration zone is mainly located along
the sidewall on both sides as opposed to the upper part,
and the zone on the side with the air duct is smaller. The
volume of the high concentration zone is 13.1 m3. When
L2 varies from 5 m to 50 m, the volume increases with
the lowest volume corresponding to 4.8 m3 (L2 = 5 m)
and the highest volume corresponding to 217.9 m3
Fig. 15. Percentage of the area in the cross-section: (a) CH4 mass fraction exceeding 0.3%; (b) H2S concentration exceeding 3 mg/m3.
15 20 30 50
22.40 30.44 126.15 368.37
10.26 18.71 31.91 217.89
(L2 = 50 m). When L2 does not exceed 20 m, the high con-
centration zone is distributed along with the sidewall while
its distribution moves to the middle when L2 reaches 30 m.
When L1 changes to 5 m, the distribution of the high con-
centration zone does not exhibit a significant change. The
volume decrease when L2 = 5 m, 10 m, and 50 m while
the opposite trend is observed otherwise. Table 3 shows
the manner in which L2 affects the volume of the H2S
high-concentration zone. The volume changes slightly
when L2 varies from 5 m to 15 m. However, the volume
increases significantly when L2 exceeds 15 m, and thus
lower bench excavation is more significantly dangerous.
In the outlet of the model, the average CH4 mass fraction
is 0.27% while the average H2S concentration is 2.64 mg/m3.
Areas where the CH4 mass fraction exceeds 0.3% and H2S
concentration exceeds 3 mg/m3 are used to measure the
quality of hazardous gas distribution. Figure 15 shows the
result. The lines indicate the changes in the hazardous gas
 Y. Fang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 168–179
distribution. When the lines reach the lower bench, they
increase rapidly because hazardous gases gush out at the
lower bench work face. Subsequently, the lines begin to
drop, and the rate of decrease indicates how quickly the
hazardous gases are diluted. When L2 does not exceed
20 m, the lines drop rapidly and hazardous gases are diluted
quickly. However, when L2 reaches 30 m, the lines drop sig-
nificantly more slowly and hazardous gases cannot be effec-
tively diluted. Thus, it is recommended that L2 is should not
exceed 20 m. When it exceeds 20 m, a local fan should be
present to aid in the dilution of the hazardous gases. When
compared to L1 = 5 m, when L1 = 10 m, the lines are
significantly lower (without considering L2 = 30 m and
L2 = 50 m) and drop in a more significantly rapid manner,
and this indicates that the hazardous gases are better
distributed and more quickly diluted.
6 Conclusions
In the study, the forced ventilation system was discussed
in terms of two types of tunneling methods, namely full-
face excavation and benching excavation. Field measure-
ment of the airflow was performed, and three-
dimensional numerical models were constructed to investi-
gate the fluid flow behavior and predict hazardous gas con-
centration in the ventilation system. The correlation
between CFD values and tested values is significant.
In full-face excavation, the effects of the distance
between the air duct exit and the work face (L1) were dis-
cussed. The results of analyses of the fluid field indicate
that L1 should not exceed 15 m such that the flow velocity
near the work face does not become excessively low and
lead to increases in the number of dead zones. The results
of pollutant concentration analyses indicate that L1 should
not exceed 20 m because the high concentration zones in
this case are smaller than those in other cases, and the pol-
lutants are better distributed and more quickly diluted.
Thus, it is recommended that L1 should not exceed 15 m,
and L1 = 10 m is the optimal choice.
In benching excavation, the effects of two key factors,
namely the distance between the air duct exit and heading
face (L1) and bench length (L2), are discussed with a speci-
fic focus on the low bench work face. The results of analy-
ses of the flow field indicate that decreases in L2 increase
the flow velocity near the lower bench work face. The
results of pollutant concentration analyses indicate that
when L2 exceeds 15 m, the high-concentration zones
decrease and hazardous gases are better distributed and
more quickly diluted. When L2 exceeds 15 m, the high-
concentration zones rapidly increase. Generally,
L1 = 10 m is better than L1 = 5 m. Thus, in the benching
excavation, the risk of hazardous gases accumulation
increases when L2 exceeds 15 m. When the excavation
bench is long, the placement of a local fan in the lower
bench is recommended to aid in diluting harmful gases to
prevent the accumulation of hazardous gases.
179
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National Key
Research and Development Program (2016YFC0802205),
China; the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No: 64051578460), China; the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (2016YFC0802200),
China.
References
Diego, I., Torno, S., Toraño, J., Menéndez, M., & Gent, M. (2011). A
practical use of cfd for ventilation of underground works. Tunnelling &
Underground Space Technology, 26(1), 189–200.
Elioff, M. A., Smirnoff, T. P., Ryan, P. F., Putnam, J. B., & Ghadiali, B.
M. (1995). Geotechnical investigations and design alternatives for
tunnelling in the presence of hydrogen sulfide gas - Los Angeles Metro.
In: Proceedings of rapid excavation and tunneling conference (pp. 299–
318). San Francisco, CA, USA.
Fang, Y., Peng, P., Zhao, Z. C., & Zhou, C. Y. (2014). Numerical
simulation of the effect of outlet position of air duct on the
construction ventilation of the tunnel. Chinese Journal of Underground
Space and Engineering, 10(2), 468–473.
Hargreaves, D. M., & Lowndes, I. S. (2007). The computational modeling
of the ventilation flows within a rapid development drivage. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 22(2), 150–160.
Hemphill, G. B. (2013). Practical tunnel construction. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.
Likar, J., & Čadež, J. (2000). Ventilation design of enclosed underground
structures. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 15(4),
477–480.
Lowndes, I. S., Yang, Z. Y., Jobling, S., & Yates, C. (2006). A parametric
analysis of a tunnel climatic prediction and planning model. Tunnelling
& Underground Space Technology, 21(5), 520–532.
Maidl, B., Thewes, M., & Maidl, U. (2014). Handbook of tunnel
engineering. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn.
Onder, M., & Cevik, E. (2008). Statistical model for the volume rate
reaching the end of ventilation duct. Tunnelling & Underground Space
Technology, 23(2), 179–184.
Onder, M., Sarac, S., & Cevik, E. (2006). The influence of ventilation
variables on the volume rate of airflow delivered to the face of long
drivages. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21(5),
568–574.
Parra, M. T., Villafruela, J. M., Castro, F., & Méndez, C. (2006).
Numerical and experimental analysis of different ventilation systems in
deep mines. Building & Environment, 41(2), 87–93.
Ren, T., Wang, Z. W., & Cooper, G. (2014). CFD modelling of ventilation
and dust flow behaviour above an underground bin and the design of
an innovative dust mitigation system. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 41, 241–254.
Tang, X., Chen, G. H., & Zhou, R. Q. (2011). Hydrogen sulphide
monitoring and comprehensive treatment programme for the huay-
ingshan road tunnel. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 48(4), 25–31.
Toraño, J., Torno, S., Menéndez, M., & Gent, M. (2011). Auxiliary
ventilation in mining roadways driven with roadheaders: Validated cfd
modelling of dust behaviour. Tunnelling & Underground Space Tech-
nology, 26(1), 201–210.
Toraño, J., Torno, S., Menendez, M., Gent, M., & Velasco, J. (2009).
Models of methane behaviour in auxiliary ventilation of underground
coal mining. International Journal of Coal Geology, 80(1), 35–43.
Tornoa, S., Ulecia, M., & Allende, C. (2013). Conventional and numerical
models of blasting gas behaviour in auxiliary ventilation of mining
headings. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 34(34), 73–81.
Wang, X., Liu, X., Sun, Y., An, J., Jing, Z., & Chen, H. (2009).
Construction schedule simulation of a diversion tunnel based on the
optimized ventilation time. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 165(1),
933–943.