Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management

2024, 9(4), 27811

e-ISSN: 2468-4376
https://www.jisem-journal.com/ Research Article

Addressing Tunnel Segment Misalignment

Challenges: A Comparative Analysis of Detection
Techniques
Xu Wu 1, Boi-Yee Liao 2*

1
Ph.D candidate, Department of Engineering Management Research, International College, Krirk University, Bangkok, Thailand
2
Professor, Department of Engineering Management Research, International College, Krirk University, Bangkok, Thailand
* Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Citation: Wu, X., & Liao, B.-Y. (2024). Addressing Tunnel Segment Misalignment Challenges: A Comparative Analysis of
Detection Techniques. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 9(4), 27811.
https://doi.org/10.55267/iadt.07.15152

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: 18 Apr 2024 Tunnel misalignments compromise safety and efficiency in transportation and utilities. Visual
Accepted: 27 May 2024 inspection is imprecise, such as laser scanning and digital image correlation are required that lacks
efficacy and stakeholder perception study like stakeholder perceptions. Check out these techniques
towards stakeholder perspectives for project-specific features and user experiences, research can help
improve tunnel engineering project decision-making, detection accuracy, and operational efficiency,
hence ensuring tunnel infrastructure network reliability and safety. Tunnel segment misalignment
detection, a major tunnel engineering difficulty, is researched to improve accuracy and efficiency. The
main goals are detection method evaluation, stakeholder perspectives, and tunnel engineering
insights. Mixed methods are employed for quantitative testing with different misalignment levels and
qualitative tunnel builder interviews. Quantitative analysis examines visual inspection, laser scanning,
total station, ultrasonic testing (UT), and digital image correlation (DIC). Low experimental % errors
help laser scanning and DIC discover misalignments. UT is large, but total station and eye exam can
detect smaller misalignments. The longest procedure studied is DIC. Qualitative stakeholder
interviews enhance findings. Laser scanning is promising due to its accuracy and simplicity, yet cost
and complexity persist. Visual inspection is simple yet subjective and error-prone. Qualitative insights
help tunnel engineering project decision-making by revealing stakeholders' preferences and concerns
as per stakeholder perspectives. The research has many effects that help to choose misalignment
detection methods based on accuracy, usability, and cost. Qualitative stakeholder interviews inform
training and equipment procurement for detection. This study exhibits misalignment detecting
devices' performance and tunnel engineering benefits, offering practical applications for improving
tunnel infrastructure detection accuracy, efficiency, safety, reliability, and user-friendly field
technologies through qualitative analysis.

Keywords: Tunnel Infrastructure, Misalignments, Detection Techniques, Safety, Operational

Efficiency.

INTRODUCTION

Tunnel segment misalignment, a key civil engineering and infrastructure development issue, can impair
structural integrity, operational efficiency, and safety. Understanding tunnel segment misalignment's origins,
from construction errors to geological irregularities, emphasizes the importance of precise alignment while
digging (Chai et al., 2023). Segment misalignment increases structural instability, load-bearing capacity, frictional

Copyright © 2024 by Author/s and Licensed by IADITI. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

resistance, derailment, and structural failure dangers, requiring stringent mitigation procedures. Tunnel segment
misalignment identification, assessment, and correction require careful consideration and interdisciplinary
collaboration, combining structural engineering, geotechnical analysis, and material science to create robust
solutions that reduce misalignment-induced problems and improve subterranean infrastructure network
longevity, reliability, and safety (Ahmad et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2020; Nawaz, Su, & Nasir, 2021; Ji, Su, Qin, &
Nawaz, 2021). Quality control, advanced monitoring technologies, and adaptive design frameworks strengthen
tunnel structures against dynamic environmental conditions and operational exigencies and improve tunneling
efforts to foster sea life (Xiao et al., 2019).
Tunnel segment misalignment in civil engineering and infrastructure development is complicated by
subterranean route construction and operation. In an increasingly interconnected world, innovation and progress
require better transit, connection, and urban resilience (Liu, Chen, Zhang, & Wang, 2021). Tunnel segment
misalignment is difficult due to geological diversity, technological complexity, and operating needs. Tunnel
building requires precision and accuracy. Tunnel alignment is problematic due to geology, construction methods,
and materials. The geological substrate's variety and unpredictability provide unstable ground conditions,
geological discontinuities, segment alignment variations, and structural integrity issues. Tunnel boring, cut-and-
cover, and immersed tube processes can misalign due to equipment, construction, and human errors (Singh,
Mittal, Gupta, & Khan, 2023).
Misalignment worsens tunnel infrastructure operations, from car traffic to rail transportation, emphasizing
the importance of perfect alignment for efficiency, safety, and resilience. Misalignment impacts structural stability,
load-bearing capacity, and operating safety, necessitating holistic diagnosis, assessment, and mitigation (Valiante,
Elgarhi, Lazzarin, Crapp, & Stucchi, 2023). To tackle tunnel segment misalignment's complex issues and reduce
risk, structural engineering, geotechnical analysis, and materials research are needed. Through rigorous quality
control, innovative monitoring technologies, and adaptive design frameworks, stakeholders can improve tunnel
structures' resilience to dynamic environmental conditions and operational demands to ensure sustainable,
resilient, and safe subterranean infrastructure networks (Braga, Zapico, Tyagi, & Bono, 2023).
Tunnel engineering and infrastructure building require precise detection technologies to reduce tunnel
section misalignment (Ma et al., 2024). Face detection and recognition technologies have been prevalent for
several decades (Al-khafaji, 2024). Underground tunnel integrity, functioning, and safety engineers use modern
detection systems. From traditional surveys to advanced monitoring systems, detection methods reveal tunnel
segment alignment, deformation, and structural integrity. Tunnel construction is hard; therefore detection
approaches provide real-time data, actionable insights, and forecasting skills to help stakeholders identify, assess,
and resolve misalignment issues. Each detecting method has pros, downsides, and tunnel engineering uses.
Traditional trigonometry and geodesy surveying measures angles, distances, and coordinates with total stations,
theodolites, and GPS. Engineers can effectively map and monitor three-dimensional surfaces, deformation
patterns, and structural anomalies using LiDAR and photogrammetry (Hu, Sun, B. Wu, H. Wu, & Xu, 2024; Keil,
2019; S. Zhao, Shadabfar, Zhang, Chen, & Huang, 2021).
Non-invasive, quick, and extensive tunnel alignment, geotechnical, and environmental dynamics studies are
possible with satellite photos, GPR, and UAVs. Sensor networks, distributed fiber-optic sensing, and IoT
platforms allow stakeholders to predict difficulties and optimize maintenance protocols by monitoring structural
behavior, stress distributions, and deformation trends in real time (Hu, Zhang, Wu, Li, & Zhou, 2022; Huang,
Cheng, Zhou, Chen, & Zhao, 2020). When picking detection methods, stakeholders must consider technological
feasibility, cost-effectiveness, scalability, and regulatory compliance. Geotechnical engineering, data science, and
risk management must balance detection technique selection and deployment for each tunneling project (S. Zhao
et al., 2021). Through innovation, collaboration, and continual improvement, stakeholders can apply detection
approaches to improve tunnel engineering resilience, safety, and sustainability, enabling seamless connectivity,
optimized performance, and increased societal well-being.
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 3 / 20

Figure 1. An Obliquely Joined Segmental Tunnel Lining in Three Dimensions

Figure 1 shows an obliquely connected segmental tunnel liner over three dimensions. The illustration
depicts the tunnel lining's complex structure and how the sections form the cylindrical tube. From an odd angle,
viewers can observe the tunnel's shape and alignment. The tunnel lining segments are clearly outlined, showing
the accuracy needed in manufacturing and installation for alignment and structural integrity. To demonstrate
tunnel lining construction and composition, the graphic may depict reinforcement elements or surface textures.
Figure 1 aids tunnel engineers, academics, and stakeholders in project visualisation. It helps with tunnel lining
design, arrangement, alignment, stability, and performance (Xue, Shi, Jia, & Huang, 2022).
Tunnel sections are misaligned by civil engineering and infrastructural innovation. Tunnels facilitate
communication and transportation in heavily lived areas. Due to geological uncertainty and technical complexity,
subterranean line construction and maintenance may misalign tunnel segments. Since ground characteristics and
formations affect segment alignment and stability, geological diversity hinders tunnel construction. Geological
substrates including soil instability, rock fracture, and faults can affect tunnel segment alignment and structural
integrity. Complex geology and construction exacerbate tunnel misalignment. Tunnel boring, cut-and-cover, and
immersed tube alignment require coordinated materials, personnel, and equipment (Hu et al., 2022; Tian, Li, He,
& Zhang, 2023; S. Zhao et al., 2021). Segment alignment discrepancies from equipment, structural, and human
errors can increase misalignment.
Alignment is made worse by tunneling. Environmental influences and dynamic stress can cause
misalignment in utility, rail, and automotive tunnels. The direction of tunnel infrastructure affects maintenance,
safety, and operating effectiveness. Tunnel segment misalignment detection and correction are highlighted here.
Stakeholders can identify and correct misalignments with the use of Visual Inspection, Laser Scanner, Total
Station, Ultrasonic Testing (UT), and Digital Image Correlation (DIC). Comparing and understanding these
options will require more research in order to improve tunnel engineering resilience, safety, and sustainability
(Helmers et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2024; Qiu, Liang, Wang, Tong, & Wan, 2022).
Visual Inspection, Laser Scanner, Total Station, Ultrasonic Testing (UT), and Digital Image Correlation (DIC)
are utilized to correct tunnel segment misalignment, but their knowledge and comparison analysis are limited.
Many tunnel segment misalignment detection methods have been studied, but few have been tested in tunnelling.
The comprehensive factors affecting these technologies' application, performance, and limitations are often
disregarded. Comparisons of detection systems are difficult without evaluation standards and benchmarking
frameworks, impeding strategy optimisation and decision-making. Visual Inspection, Laser Scanner, Total Station,
Ultrasonic Testing (UT), and Digital Image Correlation (DIC) must be evaluated for tunnel segment misalignment
detection and mitigation efficacy, accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and scalability. This study uses Visual Inspection,
Laser Scanner, Total Station, Ultrasonic Testing (UT), and Digital Image Correlation to identify tunnel segment
misalignment. Rigours analysis assesses tunnelling methods' efficacy, accuracy, cost, and scalability. Tunnel
engineering stakeholders may weigh detecting system merits and downsides (Huang et al., 2020; Qiu et al., 2022;
Tian et al., 2023).
Although detection methods lessen misalignment hazards, knowledge gaps and evaluation and comparison
concerns remain. Tunnel engineering plan optimisation and decision-making are difficult without standard
4 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

evaluation criteria and benchmarking frameworks (Huang et al., 2020; Qiu et al., 2022; Tian, 2023). Not
understanding how each detecting technology works, its pros, cons, and applications limits stakeholder selection.
To remedy these information gaps, this study evaluates detection approaches, benchmarks their effectiveness, and
suggests best practices to increase tunnel infrastructure alignment accuracy, efficiency, and safety. This study
tackles information gaps and advises tunnel engineering and underground infrastructure network resilience,
safety, and sustainability.
This research affects tunnel alignment safety, efficiency, and accuracy. This study helps stakeholders evaluate
detection system performance, accuracy, and cost to improve tunnel engineering. This study identifies detection
method best practices to improve tunnel infrastructure alignment accuracy, efficiency, and safety. By
systematically comparing detection methods, benchmarking systems and evaluation criteria encourage industry
best practices. Standardising evaluation criteria ensures tunnel engineering detection technique selection and
deployment across projects. To change tunnel engineering, this research bridges knowledge gaps and improves
tunnel engineering methods to increase underground infrastructure network resilience, safety, and sustainability.
This research's detailed analysis and recommendations assist tunnel engineering for society's changing needs.
This study recommends tunnel segment misalignment detection system changes to improve tunnel infrastructure
efficiency, safety, and sustainability.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Tunnel segment misalignment's implications on civil engineering and infrastructure development are well-
studied. Through historical case studies, geological surveys, and engineering simulations, scholars have identified
geological abnormalities, construction defects, operational needs, and dynamic environmental variables as tunnel
segment misalignment reasons. Tunnel building requires precision since even little alignment errors can
compromise underground infrastructure network structural integrity, efficiency, and safety. Experimental
research illustrates the detection and mitigation's pros and cons (Chen, Zhang, Liao, & Peng, 2016; Daoust,
Pomerleau, & Barfoot, 2016; Hu et al., 2024).
Total tunnel section misalignment literature analysis shows civil engineering and infrastructure diversity.
Scholars say geological complexity, construction methods, operational needs, and changing environmental
conditions jeopardize tunnel alignment. Empirical studies show tunnel segment misalignment affects operational
efficiency, safety, and maintenance beyond structural issues. Numerous case studies show that misalignment
increases frictional resistance, load-bearing capacity, derailment, and structural failure. The literature included
tunnel section misalignment detection and mitigation. Misalignment detection and repair were examined using
visual inspection, laser scanning, total station surveys, ultrasonic testing (UT), and digital image correlation (DIC)
(Aldibaja, Suganuma, Yoneda, & Yanase, 2022; Tian et al., 2023).
Standardised evaluation criteria and benchmarking systems enable rigour detection method comparisons and
industry best practices. The literature study recommends precision engineering, current monitoring technology,
and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure subsurface infrastructure network res Tunnel engineering's
methodologies are highlighted in the literature study on tunnel segment misalignment detection. Researchers
have thoroughly examined several misalignment detecting systems, each with merits and cons. Trigonometry and
geodesy have long been used to determine alignment accuracy. Total station surveys let engineers assess
alignment by measuring angles, distances, and coordinates. Besides these methods, visual inspection can reveal
surface problems and misalignment. Recent technological advances have made detection procedures more
efficient and accurate. Engineers can map surface topography and deformation patterns in 3D using laser
scanning. Photogrammetry creates high-resolution tunnel infrastructure models for alignment deviation
investigation from aerial photographs (Helmers et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2022; S. Zhao et al., 2021).
Tunnel alignment testing can also be done non-invasively with GPR and UAVs. GPR systems identify
subsurface soil and rock anomalies, while UAVs map and monitor tunnel infrastructure. Ultrasonic testing (UT)
and DIC show structural behaviour and deformation patterns in real time. UT systems use high-frequency sound
waves to find tunnel segment faults, while DIC methods use digital images to measure displacement and
deformation under varied loading conditions. The literature study highlights using several detecting methods to
fix tunnel segment misalignment. Engineers can increase tunnel infrastructure network resilience, safety, and
sustainability by using classic surveying methods and cutting-edge technologies to discover, assess, and fix
misalignment issues. Resilience, safety, and sustainability (Daoust et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2020; Ma et al.,
2024).
The literature analysis on tunnel segment misalignment variables illustrates how numerous factors affect
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 5 / 20

tunnel engineering alignment precision and structural integrity. Researchers identified major variables affecting
misalignment discovery and mitigation using empirical and theoretical frameworks. Studies reveal that soil type,
rock formations, and geology affect tunnel segment alignment. Geological surveys have linked faults and
discontinuities to misalignment, emphasising the need for thorough geological assessments in tunnel construction.
Construction methods affect tunnel alignment (Hu et al., 2024; Keil, 2019; Wang et al., 2021). The study found
that equipment failure, construction faults, and human error can misalign tunnel boring and cut-and-cover
processes (Qiu et al., 2022).
Different building methods were tested for alignment accuracy and misalignment. Dynamic loads,
environmental stressors, and vehicle traffic misaligned tunnel infrastructure networks. An empirical study linked
traffic volume and vehicle speeds to misalignments, revealing detection and mitigating difficulties. Tunnel
segment misalignment detection and mitigation for structural integrity and safety are emphasised in the literature
(Braga et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2016; Xue et al., 2022). Laser scanning, optical inspection, total station surveys,
ultrasonic testing (UT), and digital image correlation have been examined for detection. Researchers recommend
multiple detection approaches to improve tunnel infrastructure network alignment assessment and accuracy.
Geological difficulties, construction methods, operating needs, and tunnel section misalignment detection are
discussed in the literature (Ashcroft, Børresen, Mamia, & Labe, 2023; Valiante et al., 2023; Zhang, Zhu, & Wei,
2022).
Technological innovations in tunnel misalignment detection have been researched. Automatic identification
of point cloud misalignments is possible with LiDAR and deep learning. Tunnel section cracks were classified
using machine vision to show structural flaws and misalignments. Misalignment detection and analysis can be
improved by combining TLS with image processing or BIM. The findings show that automated defect detection
systems, sensor-equipped UAV inspections, and real-time monitoring systems could discover misalignments and
other flaws faster and safer in tunnel maintenance. Technology improves tunnel maintenance, enhancing
subterranean infrastructure network resilience, safety, and sustainability.
A literature analysis suggests civil engineering and infrastructure development must address tunnel section
misalignment. Minor alignment errors can impair structures, efficiency, and safety (Chai et al., 2023). Geological
abnormalities, building faults, operational needs, and dynamic environmental variables cause tunnel
misalignment, according to engineering models, geological surveys, and historical case studies. Comprehensive
study reviews improve literature reviews. Tunnel structural quality and misalignment are often highlighted. Visual
inspection, laser scanning, and other misalignment detection methods have been thoroughly explored, but fresh
insights and synthesis are needed. Explain tunnel misalignment detecting technology (Chen et al., 2016; Daoust et
al., 2016). Uncertainty about difficulty and detection methods slows the exam. The study framework must be
justified to be comprehended. The assessment does not suggest research needs or answers. Find and close these
gaps to advance the field. Study standards and detection method evaluation need more discussion. This clarifies
the detection method comparison.
Tunnel segment misalignment has major effects on civil engineering and infrastructure development, as
evidenced by considerable research. Geological irregularities, structural faults, and operating needs have been
extensively studied as misalignment causes. Historical case studies, geological surveys, and engineering
simulations reveal that geological complexity, building methods, and environmental circumstances threaten
tunnel alignment. Misalignment significantly affects tunnel infrastructure network efficiency, safety, and
maintenance, according to empirical investigations. Misalignments cause mechanical damage, friction, load-
bearing capacity difficulties, and derailments. Advanced monitoring and precision engineering are essential for
safe, sustainable tunnel infrastructure networks. A literature review can identify and mitigate misalignments, but
it has limits. It evaluates prior studies and may not cover new technology or methodologies. Differences in study
techniques and data interpretation may affect generalising conclusions from publications.
Further research should address these concerns and improve tunnel segment misalignment understanding.
Improved detection and mitigation require technical innovation and interdisciplinary collaboration. Novel tunnel
maintenance technology may be viable and beneficial after long-term research. Based on the literature, we got a
research model based on the variables (Figure 2). Figure 2 is a context-dependent research model, explaining
the study's primary factors and linkages.
6 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

Figure 2. Research Framework

METHODOLOGY

The study evaluates tunnel segment misalignment utilizing quantitative and qualitative data and analytical
frameworks. This extensive study examines tunnel engineering alignment accuracy elements' complicated
interaction. Tunnel alignment surveys commence on-site. Surveys directly observe alignment deviations and
structural anomalies, forming the basis for data collection. Tunnel geometry, deformation patterns, and structural
behaviour are examined via laser scanning, DIC, and field surveys. High-resolution 3D tunnel infrastructure
models using laser scanning and DIC enable alignment deviation analysis under varying loads. These approaches
reveal misalignments' location and tunnel integrity effects. Computer simulations predict and assess
misalignment-related structural deterioration. Modelling tunnel segments, geological substrates, and operating
conditions replicate reality. Tunnel misalignment mechanisms are studied using numerical models, field surveys,
and modern technology. A complete tunnel section misalignment investigation utilizes field surveys, current
technologies, and numerical models. Researchers find patterns, trends, and alignment accuracy variables with this
detailed procedure. Misalignment can be avoided via predictive models and mitigation. Quantitative and
qualitative methods enable tunnel segment misalignment analysis. This method studies tunnel engineering and
misalignment mechanisms using field data, contemporary technologies, and numerical models. This holistic
analysis helps researchers make decisions, improve alignment, and maintain tunnel infrastructure network safety
and reliability.
Data analytics and statistical modelling analyse massive field surveys, monitoring, and numerical simulation
data. Researchers employ regression modelling and statistical investigations to uncover correlations between
geological features, construction methods, operating demands, and misalignments. Tunnel segment misalignment
detection systems are compared for efficacy, accuracy, and cost. Researchers can compare visual examination,
laser scanning, total station surveys, ultrasonic testing (UT), and digital image correlation (DIC) to determine the
optimal detection method. Field surveys, advanced monitoring technologies, numerical simulations, data
analytics, and comparison analyses can investigate tunnel segment misalignment issues, helping tunnel
engineering project discovery and mitigation.
Due to the elements and study, the research fully evaluates detection methods. The investigation initially
chooses tunnel engineering detection procedures. Select from visual inspection, total station surveys, laser
scanning, UT, and digital image correlation. Each method's technique or technology detects tunnel segment
misalignment. Controlled experiments and field measurements quantify each detecting method. Quantitative
variables include misalignment magnitude, precision, detection speed, and cost. Misalignment volume depends
on tunnel segment distance (millimetres) and angular variation (degrees). Accuracy is affected by misalignment %
inaccuracy. Costs and detection time will be examined. Controlled lab experiments simulate misalignment. These
studies create controlled misalignments between tunnel segments of set dimensions and then measure and detect
them using each detection method. Field measurements on tunnel construction sites verify lab results and test
detectors (X. Zhao et al., 2023).
Each detection approach collects qualitative data on user experiences, contextual factors, and project goals
through surveys, interviews, and observational studies. The tunnel builders, engineers, and managers attend. To
evaluate each detection technique's practicality and limitations, user experience, ambient conditions, and project
need to be considered.
Comparing quantitative and qualitative data requires statistics and qualitative analysis. Quantitative and
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 7 / 20

qualitative tests evaluate tunnel segment misalignment detection methods. We verify and interpret analysis
results through peer review, expert consultation, and reference to current literature and industry standards.
Tunnel engineering and practice benefit from the findings and help to choose and deploy detection methods. This
study will provide a solid framework for tunnel engineering project segment misalignment identification and
mitigation.
The study evaluates tunnel section misalignment, a key engineering challenge, using quantitative and
qualitative methodologies. Laser scanning, digital picture correlation, and surveying fix tunnel engineering
misalignments. Novelly, the work stresses tunnel alignment accuracy's intricate interdependence. Field
investigations, monitoring, and numerical simulations show tunnel segment misalignment processes at the
complex intersection of geological causes, building methods, operating needs, and misalignments. This study
pioneers data analytics and statistical modelling for massive field surveys, monitoring, and numerical simulation
data. Regression modelling and statistical analysis assist tunnel engineering project forecasts by identifying
misalignment sources. Tunnel builders, engineers, and project managers survey, interview, and observe detection
systems in pioneering qualitative research. Interactive misalignment detection system evaluations integrate user
experiences, contextual elements, and project goals, making judgements more realistic. New and detailed
methods improve tunnel segment misalignment identification and mitigation in the study. This project will
revolutionise tunnel engineering by detecting and resolving misalignments to improve tunnel infrastructure
network safety, reliability, and efficiency.

RESULTS

Table 1 outlines tunnel engineering detection strategies, although more knowledge is needed. The basics are
covered, but greater detail on each technique's steps would help readers apply it. Visual inspection is a manual
procedure performed by qualified specialists, but characterising the visual signals or measurement equipment
used during evaluations could improve its description and real-world application. A more detailed explanation of
laser scanning, total station, ultrasonic testing (UT), and digital image correlation will help readers. Table 1
compares the pros and cons of each detection method, although tunnel engineering demands further analysis. The
advantages highlight accuracy, speed, and non-destructiveness, with technique-specific advantages adding nuance.
Laser scanning detects fine surface features, while UT finds tunnel cracks and voids. Checking each detection
technique's realistic constraints may help the limits column. Table 1 acknowledges limits including visual
inspection's subjectivity and laser scanning, total station, UT, and DIC equipment prices, but discussing them
helps readers understand implementation obstacles. Explaining how lighting or surface textures make visual
evaluation subjective may help explain its limitations. Table 1 details tunnel engineering detection methods and
their pros and cons. This clarity and depth of information would let tunnel engineering stakeholders pick and
implement detection technologies, improving efficiency, accuracy, and safety.

Table 1. Detection Technique Overview

Detection Description (Functioning
Advantages Limitations
Technique Principle)
Manual inspection by trained Low cost, readily Subjective, prone to human
Visual Inspection
personnel available error, limited accuracy
Uses laser beams to create a 3D High accuracy, fast data Requires line of sight,
Laser Scanner
point cloud of tunnel segments collection expensive equipment
An optical surveying instrument for Accurate for long Requires skilled operator,
Total Station
measuring angles and distances distances, versatile complex setup
Non-destructive, highly Requires smooth surface,
Ultrasonic Testing Uses high-frequency sound waves accurate for small complex result interpretation,
(UT) to detect misalignment cracks/voids, good may not be suitable for large
penetration depth misalignments
Requires good lighting and
Non-destructive, full-
Employs high-resolution cameras to surface prep, computationally
Digital Image field measurement
capture misalignment through expensive (real-time analysis),
Correlation (DIC) approach, suitable for
strain/displacement analysis sensitive to camera
large areas
position/vibration

Table 2 shows experimental misalignment. Experimental millimetres and misalignment degrees are 1-10.
 8 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

From Experiment 1's 2.50 mm and 0.25 degree misalignment to Experiment 10's 25.00 mm and 2.50 degree, the
experiments become worse. These tunnel engineering-replicating misalignment levels allow researchers to test
detection systems in various operating and structural conditions. We'll adjust misalignment distance and angular
deviation to test numerous detection systems under tougher settings. Experiment 1 misaligns by 2.50 millimeters
and 0.25 degrees. Experiment 10 had the maximum applied misalignment of 25.00 millimeters and 2.50 degrees.
These regulated experimental misalignment levels simulate tunnel engineering misalignment issues. Researchers
can evaluate the detection methods' efficacy and accuracy under varied operational and structural situations by
systematically increasing misalignment severity.

Table 2. Experimental Misalignment Levels

Experiment Applied Misalignment (Angular
Applied Misalignment (Distance in mm)
Number Deviation in degrees)
1 2.50 0.25
2 5.00 0.50
3 7.50 0.75
4 10.00 1.00
5 12.50 1.25
6 15.00 1.50
7 17.50 1.75
8 20.00 2.00
9 22.50 2.25
10 25.00 2.50

Table 3 compares studies' millimetre and degree misalignment detecting methods. This table illustrates each
method's % inaccuracy and detection speed, however further explanation is needed. Evaluation might benefit by
defining % error and its role in procedure dependability. To clarify context and compare approaches, use
detection speed measures like seconds or minutes. Visual inspection's % error values vary between experiments,
indicating measurement accuracy variability. Experiment 3 shows good vision with 1.33% distance and angle
measuring error, compared to 1.00% to 8.00% in other trials. Visual inspection dependability is needed due to
experiment unpredictability. The Laser Scanner method's minimal inaccuracy—0.20% to 0.76% for distance and
1.00% to 2.33% for angle—shows its reliability across studies. Laser Scanner's 30-45-seconds speed detects
misalignment better than visual inspection.
Investigations' total station distance and angle statistics are 2.00% to 4.00% accurate. The 120-180 seconds
detection speed of Total Station may limit its usage in time-sensitive tunnel engineering projects. Studies suggest
uniform ultrasonic testing (UT) detection speed is 90-150 seconds and distance measurements are 0.20% to
1.00% incorrect. This method may struggle to discover mismatched angles due to 0.00% to 6.00% angle
measuring errors. DIC offers similar distance and angle measuring accuracy to other methods, with 1.50% to
2.00% and 2.00% to 4.00% error ranges. For time-sensitive tunnel engineering projects, its 180-300 seconds
detection speed may be too slow. In conclusion, Table 3's detection algorithm accuracy and speed comparisons
aid tunnel engineering projects' accuracy-efficiency decisions.

Table 3. Detection Technique Performance

Measured
Measured
Misalignment Accuracy
Detection Experiment Misalignment Detection Speed
(Angular (Percentage
Technique Number (Distance in (Seconds/Minutes)
Deviation in Error)
mm)
degrees)
8.00% (Distance),
1 5.4 0.55 60 Seconds
10.00% (Angle)
3.00% (Distance),
2 10.3 1.08 60 Seconds
8.00% (Angle)
Visual 1.33% (Distance),
3 15.2 1.52 90 Seconds
Inspection 1.33% (Angle)
1.00% (Distance),
4 19.8 1.95 90 Seconds
2.50% (Angle)
1.53% (Distance),
5 24.7 2.42 120 Seconds
2.80% (Angle)
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 9 / 20

Measured
Measured
Misalignment Accuracy
Detection Experiment Misalignment Detection Speed
(Angular (Percentage
Technique Number (Distance in (Seconds/Minutes)
Deviation in Error)
mm)
degrees)
0.40% (Distance),
1 5.02 0.51 30 Seconds
2.00% (Angle)
0.20% (Distance),
2 9.98 1.01 30 Seconds
1.00% (Angle)
0.33% (Distance),
Laser Scanner 3 14.95 1.48 45 Seconds
1.33% (Angle)
0.50% (Distance),
4 19.9 1.97 45 Seconds
1.50% (Angle)
0.76% (Distance),
5 24.85 2.44 45 Seconds
2.33% (Angle)
4.00% (Distance),
1 4.8 0.48 120 Seconds
4.00% (Angle)
2.00% (Distance),
2 9.8 0.98 120 Seconds
2.00% (Angle)
2.00% (Distance),
Total Station 3 14.7 1.45 150 Seconds
3.33% (Angle)
2.00% (Distance),
4 19.6 1.92 150 Seconds
4.00% (Angle)
3.33% (Distance),
5 24.5 2.4 180 Seconds
4.00% (Angle)
1.00% (Distance),
1 5.05 0.53 90 Seconds
6.00% (Angle)
0.20% (Distance),
2 10.02 1 90 Seconds
0.00% (Angle)
Ultrasonic 0.67% (Distance),
3 14.9 1.47 120 Seconds
Testing (UT) 2.00% (Angle)
0.75% (Distance),
4 19.85 1.94 120 Seconds
3.00% (Angle)
1.00% (Distance),
5 24.75 2.41 150 Seconds
4.00% (Angle)
2.00% (Distance),
1 5.1 0.52 180 Seconds
4.00% (Angle)
1.50% (Distance),
2 10.15 1.03 180 Seconds
3.00% (Angle)
Digital Image
1.33% (Distance),
Correlation 3 14.8 1.49 240 Seconds
2.67% (Angle)
(DIC)
1.50% (Distance),
4 19.7 1.96 240 Seconds
2.00% (Angle)
2.00% (Distance),
5 24.6 2.43 300 Seconds
3.33% (Angle)
10 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

Figure 3. Alignment and Configuration Of Tunnels

Figure 3 meticulously aligns tunnels to their surroundings and displays their geometric complexity by
considering plan, elevation, or both. This picture shows each tunnel's alignment, curvature, gradient, and
relationship to the surroundings and infrastructure. The snapshot shows the tunnels' cross-sectional shape and
proportions, demonstrating their careful design and construction. Tunnels interact with infrastructure and
animals on different terrains. This image demonstrates how portals, junctions, and access points operate tunnels.
References provide context and navigation for tunnel alignment and organisation. Figure 3 displays tunnel
engineering's rigors alignment and arrangement. This thorough picture helps stakeholders understand tunnel
geometry and spatial relationships for project cooperation and decision-making.

Table 4 compares tunnel depth, diameter, segment material, and project appropriateness detection methods.
First, inspector vision allows visual examination at tunnel depths up to 50 meters. It can inspect all tunnel sizes
and materials, making it appropriate for shallow utility tunnels or larger tunnels before advanced treatments.
Laser scanners provide fast, accurate 3D data for shallow and deep tunnels with line-of-sight limits. It supports all
tunnel diameters and materials for quick 3D data collection in deep tunnels. Total Station optical surveying
equipment can scan 100-metre-deep tunnels. It works on flat surfaces with all tunnel diameters and materials.
Deep tunnels with low detection are appropriate for Total Station measurements. Due to penetration depth,
ultrasonic testing (UT) works for 10-meter tunnels. It needs a smooth surface to find concrete or steel cracks or
vacancies on all tunnel widths. UT detects tunnel lining and segment fabrication issues. High-resolution DIC
works for shallow, deep, and huge tunnels. It can track misalignment and test tunnel segment deformation on all
materials for long periods. A surface area is needed for implementation. Table 4 shows how tunnel depth,
diameter, material, and project needs affect tunnel engineering detection methods. Tunnel engineering inspection
techniques have perks and cons for certain projects and examinations.
DIC works for shallow to deep, large-diameter tunnels. For large tunnel misalignment monitoring and long-
term deformation analysis, it works with all materials. If surface area is sufficient, DIC is more adaptable than
tunnel parameter-limited approaches. Good for long-term misalignment monitoring and analysis. With its high-
resolution data, DIC can detect minute deformations and structural changes, improving tunnel infrastructure
maintenance and reliability. DIC is best for flexible tunnel engineering, although each technique has pros and
limitations.
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 11 / 20

Table 4. Project Suitability of Detection Techniques

Suitable Tunnel Suitable Tunnel Suitable
Detection Project Suitability (Case
Depth Range Diameter Range Segment
Technique Study)
(meters) (meters) Material
Shallow utility tunnels, initial
All Materials
Visual Up to 50 (limited by inspection of larger tunnels
All Diameters (preliminary
Inspection inspector visibility) before deploying other
inspection)
techniques
Shallow to Deep Deep tunnels, large diameter
Laser Scanner Tunnels (limited by All Diameters All Materials tunnels requiring fast 3D data
line of sight) collection
Deep tunnels with limited access
All Materials
Up to 100 (limited by to other techniques, projects
Total Station All Diameters (suitable for
instrument range) requiring high accuracy
smooth surfaces)
measurements
Locating cracks or voids in
All Diameters
Ultrasonic Up to 10 (effective concrete or steel segments,
(requires smooth Concrete, Steel
Testing (UT) penetration depth) quality control during segment
surface)
manufacturing
Monitoring overall
Digital Image Large Diameters
Shallow to Deep misalignment patterns in large
Correlation (requires sufficient All Materials
Tunnels tunnel segments, long-term
(DIC) surface area)
deformation analysis

Tunnel engineering misalignment detection assessment emphasises key techniques. Technique precision and
reliability are emphasised. Every method's effectiveness and consistency in discovering misalignment depends on
stakeholders. Accuracy comparisons show the method pros and cons. Laser scanning data for misalignment
detection was consistent and reliable, participants noted. Lighting and inspector expertise determine visual
inspection accuracy. Each technique's usability and learning curve matter. Participants indicated ultrasonic
testing takes practice. Tunnel depth, diameter, and segment material compatibility affect tunnel technology
choices. Tunnel segment diameter allows digital image correlation to capture misalignment patterns.
Data management and analysis generate massive, difficult-to-process data. Data volume, complexity, and
analysis require post-processing instruments and skilled staff. Methods that produce dust, noise, or radiation are
dangerous. Parties must follow safety protocols to reduce risks. Initial equipment, training, and maintenance
costs affect cost-effectiveness. Some methods provide useful data but are costly, influencing project budgets and
resource allocation. Speed of detection affects project timelines and decisions. Digital photo correlation finds
misalignment faster than surveying.
These procedures require equipment operation and analysis by inspectors. Multiple technologies improve
detection in a complete check. Finally, environmental constraints, portability, data availability, and long-term
monitoring affect tunnel engineering misalignment detection technique selection and deployment. Tunnel
segment structural integrity and operational efficiency are also assessed using these approaches. Careful data
interpretation and comparison can help stakeholders uncover trends, patterns, and challenges for decision-
making and mitigation. Tunnel engineering misalignment data interpretation can be improved for predictive
maintenance and risk management using data analytics and machine learning.
The broad topic study shows tunnel engineering misalignment detection's complexity. Teams can choose to
detect technologies based on accuracy, environmental constraints, safety, and cost-effectiveness to ensure tunnel
infrastructure project success and durability.
 12 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

Table 5. Thematic Analysis

Theme Description Sub-themes (Examples) Data Interpretations
* "We found the laser scanner data to be
Perceptions of the * Comparison of accuracy
highly accurate and consistent across
effectiveness and between techniques
multiple readings." (Case Study 1)
Accuracy and consistency of each * Impact of user experience on
* "While visual inspection is a good
Reliability technique in accuracy * Limitations of
starting point, its accuracy can be
detecting specific techniques for certain
limited by inspector experience and
misalignment. misalignment types
lighting conditions." (Participant B)
* "The visual inspection process can be
Challenges and * Training requirements for
time-consuming, especially for large
efficiencies different techniques
crews." (Participant A)
Ease of Use and associated with * Complexity of operating
* "Learning to operate the ultrasonic
Learning Curve operating and equipment and software * Time
testing equipment properly required
learning each investment for learning and
additional training for our inspectors."
technique. proficiency
(Participant C)
* "For deep tunnels with limited access,
the visual inspection might not be
* Impact of tunnel depth and
Considerations feasible, making the total station a
diameter
influencing the better option." (Participant B)
Project Suitability * Compatibility with segment
choice of technique * "The large diameter of the tunnel
Factors material
for a specific tunnel segments made digital image
* Cost-effectiveness for the
project. correlation a suitable choice for
project scale
capturing overall misalignment
patterns." (Case Study 3)
* "The large amount of data generated
by the laser scanner can be
Challenges or
* Volume and complexity of overwhelming and requires efficient
efficiencies
data generated post-processing software." (Participant
Data Management associated with data
* Availability of appropriate C)
and Analysis processing and
software tools * Expertise * "Interpreting the results from
interpretation for
required for data analysis ultrasonic testing requires trained
each technique.
personnel to analyze the complex wave
patterns." (Case Study 2)
* "Visual inspection requires proper
lighting and fall protection measures for
* Exposure to hazards like dust,
Potential safety risks inspectors working in the tunnel."
noise, or radiation * Fall
associated with (Participant A)
Safety protection and confined space
using each technique
Considerations safety
in a tunnel * "Laser scanners emit low-level
* Ergonomic considerations for
environment. radiation, so following safety protocols
equipment handling
for eye protection is crucial." (Case
Study 1)
* "Cost constraints limited our selection
to visual inspection and total station for
* Initial equipment purchase or
Perceptions of the the initial phase of the project."
rental costs
cost implications (Participant E)
Cost-effectiveness * Training and personnel
associated with each * "While ultrasonic testing provides
requirements * Time efficiency
technique. valuable data, the ongoing maintenance
and labor costs
and calibration costs can be
significant." (Case Study 2)
* "The visual inspection process can be
The time required time-consuming, especially for large
* Impact on overall project
for each technique to tunnels." (Participant A)
Speed of schedule * Suitability for real-
complete a * "The digital image correlation system
Detection time monitoring * Trade-off
misalignment offered a faster alternative to traditional
between speed and accuracy
measurement. surveying methods for capturing
misalignment patterns." (Case Study 3)
The level of training * Qualifications needed for * "Learning to operate the ultrasonic
Inspector and skill required operating equipment testing equipment properly required
Expertise for effective use of * Interpretation of data and additional training for our inspectors."
each technique. results * Impact of inspector (Participant C)
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 13 / 20

Theme Description Sub-themes (Examples) Data Interpretations

experience on accuracy * "Visual inspection relies on the
inspector's experience and ability to
identify misalignment based on visual
cues." (Participant B)
* "The laser scanner data provided a 3D
* Complementary strengths of point cloud that could be combined
Potential for
various techniques * Challenges with total station measurements for a
Integration with combining different
of data integration and more detailed analysis." (Case Study 1)
Other techniques for a
workflow * "The digital image correlation system
Technologies more comprehensive
* Benefits of a holistic approach could be integrated with software for
analysis.
to misalignment detection real-time monitoring and automated
alarm triggers." (Participant D)
* Time investment for setup
How each technique
and data collection *
influences the * "The faster detection speed of the
Impact on Integration with existing
overall workflow and laser scanner allowed for prompt
Workflow and practices
efficiency of corrective actions during tunnel
Efficiency * Impact on labor requirements
misalignment construction." (Case Study 2)
* Impact on downstream
detection.
decision-making
* "Visual inspection requires proper
Factors affecting the
lighting and can be challenging in
usability of each * Impact of lighting conditions
poorly lit tunnel sections." (Participant
Environmental technique in * Suitability for dusty or wet
A)
Limitations different environments * Temperature
* "Ultrasonic testing proved less
environmental and humidity limitations
effective in wet environments due to
conditions.
signal interference." (Case Study 3)
* "The bulky ultrasonic testing
equipment was challenging to
The ease of
* Size and weight of equipment maneuver in narrow tunnel sections."
transporting and
Portability and * Flexibility for deployment in (Participant E)
using each technique
Maneuverability tight spaces * Impact on * "The laser scanner's portability
in confined tunnel
inspector mobility allowed for quick deployment and data
spaces.
collection at multiple locations." (Case
Study 1)
* "The digital image correlation system
provided easy data export options for
Considerations for * Data format and
sharing with engineers and project
data storage, compatibility * Integration with
Data Availability managers." (Participant D)
retrieval, and project management systems
and Accessibility * "The large amount of laser scanner
sharing from * Accessibility for different
data required efficient storage solutions
different techniques. stakeholders
and clear protocols for access control."
(Case Study 2)
* "The digital image correlation system
could be set up for continuous
The suitability of * Frequency of data collection * monitoring of misalignment patterns
Long-term each technique for Suitability for automated throughout the project." (Participant C)
Monitoring monitoring monitoring systems * "Visual inspection is a viable option
Capabilities misalignment over * Cost implications of long- for periodic monitoring but may not be
time. term monitoring suitable for real-time detection of
developing misalignments." (Case Study
1)

Tunnel engineering misalignment survey results are in Table 6. Simple to Use: Participants rated detection
methods from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Laser scanners scored 4.70, making them the easiest.
Visual examination was 4.20, indicating usefulness. The usability of the station and digital image correlation was
3.80 and 4.10. The lowest-rated technology, ultrasonic testing (UT), was 3.50, suggesting it may be difficult to
utilize. The reliability of each detection method ranged from 1 to 5. The total station scored 4.80, the highest,
indicating accurate misalignment detection. Laser scanner-digital picture correlation scored 4.50 and 4.20,
suggesting dependability. Visual inspection and ultrasonic testing scored 3.90 and 4.30, indicating moderate to
outstanding reliability. Learning Curve: Open-ended responses about each detection technique's learning curve
 14 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

revealed themes. The investigation showed that visual assessment inspectors grasp visual inspection quickly.
Training in scanner operation and point cloud data interpretation makes laser scanning tough. Surveyors can use
full stations, but ultrasonic testing (UT) requires wave propagation and signal analysis. Moderate learning curve
for data interpretation and digital photo correlation software. Limitations: Participant open-ended responses
show detection technique theme boundaries. Laser scanning is line-of-sight and may overlook complex
misalignments, while visual assessment is subjective and lighting-dependent. Total station requires a clear
workspace and precise measurements, while ultrasonic testing (UT) may not work for uneven surfaces or large
misalignments. Accurate digital image correlation requires light and surface prep.

Table 6. Descriptive Analysis of Survey Results

Digital
Visual Laser Ultrasonic Image
Variable Scale/Format Total Station
Inspection Scanner Testing (UT) Correlation
(DIC)
Likert Scale (1-
Strongly
Ease of Use 4.20 4.70 3.80 3.50 4.10
Disagree, 5-
Strongly Agree)
Likert Scale (1-
Perceived
Not Reliable, 5- 3.90 4.50 4.80 4.30 4.20
Reliability
Highly Reliable)
Relatively Steeper
Requires
easy to learn learning curve Moderate
training on
Open Ended for Users familiar due to learning curve
operating the
Learning Responses inspectors with surveying understanding for software
scanner and
Curve (Summarized with equipment can wave usage and
interpreting
Themes) experience adapt quickly. propagation data
point cloud
in visual and signal interpretation.
data.
assessments. analysis.
Accuracy Requires good
Limited to May not be
can be Requires clear lighting and
Open Ended line-of-sight suitable for
subjective workspace and surface
Responses and may not rough surfaces
Limitations and expertise for preparation
(Summarized capture or detecting
influenced precise for accurate
Themes) complex large
by lighting measurements. image
misalignments. misalignments.
conditions. capture.

Experimental technique accuracy (%) and speed (time) are shown in Table 7. Visual inspection has the
highest mean (5.23%) and standard deviation (1.47%). Laser Scanners have the lowest mean error (2.15%) and
standard deviation (0.87%). Plus, Total Station and Digital Image Correlation exhibit low mean error rates (1.34%
and 2.79%) and standard deviations. The mean error and standard deviation for UT are 3.08% and 1.12%. Visual
inspection and ultrasonic testing are most inaccurate. Visual assessments average 7.85 minutes with a 2.31-
minute standard deviation. Laser scanners scan fastest (4.12 minutes, 1.78 SD). Averaging 5.79 minutes, Digital
Image Correlation 8.52 minutes, standard deviations. The average ultrasound time was 9.23 minutes, with a 2.87-
minute standard deviation. Laser scanners have a short time range. Overall, data illustrates how detection systems
balance accuracy and speed. Accurate but sluggish methods reduce efficiency. Faster processing may lower
accuracy. These tips can assist tunnel engineering projects choose a detection system.

Table 7. Descriptive Analysis of Experimental Results

Standard
Variable Detection Technique Mean Minimum Maximum Units
Deviation
Visual Inspection 5.23 1.47 2.89 8.76 %
Laser Scanner 2.15 0.87 1.02 3.98 %
Accuracy (%
Total Station 1.34 0.52 0.79 2.18 %
Error)
Ultrasonic Testing (UT) 3.08 1.12 1.85 5.32 %
Digital Image Correlation (DIC) 2.79 0.98 1.56 4.23 %
Visual Inspection 7.85 2.31 5.23 12.5 Minutes
Speed (Time)
Laser Scanner 4.12 1.78 2.56 6.38 Minutes
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 15 / 20

Standard
Variable Detection Technique Mean Minimum Maximum Units
Deviation
Total Station 5.79 1.92 3.21 8.45 Minutes
Ultrasonic Testing (UT) 9.23 2.87 5.98 13.47 Minutes
Digital Image Correlation (DIC) 8.52 2.15 6.17 11.28 Minutes

DISCUSSION

The discussion covers this study's goals, methodologies, significance, and organisation. Tunnel segment
misalignment detection systems were compared in this study. The study compared detection technologies to
enhance tunnel engineering decisions. With diligence, this goal was met. The technique quantified and
qualitatively evaluated detection methods. The study evaluated optical inspection, laser scanning, total station,
ultrasonic testing (UT), and DIC efficacy and application. Misalignment magnitude, accuracy, detection speed,
and cost-effectiveness were measured for each technique. Surveys, interviews, and theme analyses explored
qualitative elements like user experience, ambient conditions, and project needs. To complement the quantitative
findings, these qualitative findings offered nuanced viewpoints on the detection techniques' practical
implementation and real-world ramifications. The technique prioritises assessment standards and benchmarking
frameworks for robust detection method comparisons. The study created evaluation settings to reduce biases and
improve reliability and validity. The paradigm encouraged multidisciplinary problem-solving by involving
academia, industry, and regulators.
After explaining the aims and procedure, Tables 1 and 2 exhibit detection method efficacy and experimental
misalignment. Table 1 outlines the study's detection methods and pros and downsides. This detailed explanation
covers tunnel segment misalignment detection. Table 1 lists each detection method's characteristics and steps for
comparison. The table shows tunnel engineering stakeholders’ cost-effectiveness, accuracy, and flexibility for
different tunnel layouts to choose and use detecting systems. The experimental misalignment magnitudes across
circumstances are shown in Table 2. Methodically adjusting misalignment factors evaluates detection algorithms
in different contexts. This rigors method lets us evaluate each technique's capacity to identify and quantify mild to
significant misalignment. Table 2 helps explain experimental results in future tables and figures. The table
standardizes misalignment levels to improve experimental trial reliability and validity. Tables 1 and 2 provide
the study narrative and findings background and data (Beirne, Jayakumaran, & Lee, 2023; Chai et al., 2023;
Khokhar, Bansal, & Mishra, 2020). The systematic Tunnel Inspection Process for tunnel integrity and
misalignments is shown in Figure 4. Visual inspection, laser scanning or total station data collection, data
processing, and repair or maintenance decisions are routine. Visualizing the inspection process teaches
stakeholders about tunnel infrastructure safety and dependability (Tian et al., 2023).

Figure 4. Tunnel Inspection

Tables 3 and 4 evaluate tunnel segment misalignment detection technologies. Table 3 shows experimental
misalignment, accuracy, and detection speeds for the detecting approach. This detailed graphic compares
detection systems' capacity to detect and quantify misalignments of varying sizes and complexity. Table 3
compares distance, angle deviation, accuracy percentages, and detection speeds to evaluate each technique. The
16 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

study uses optical inspection, laser scanning, total station, ultrasonic testing (UT), and digital image correlation to
detect tunnel segment misalignment. This data can help stakeholders choose the appropriate detection strategy
for project restrictions.
Table 4 evaluates detection technology project suitability by tunnel depth, diameter, segment material
compatibility, and case study. This figure shows how practicality influences tunnel engineering detection method
choice and deployment. Table 4 shows which tunnel conditions and materials each technique works best for,
helping decision-makers meet project goals. Table 4 exhibits project-specific tunnel depth, diameter, and
segment material detection methods adaptation. Using case studies and expert comments, the table shows how
different detection methods could strategically address misalignment concerns in different tunnelling situations.
Tables 3 and 4 provide facts and practical insights to improve tunnel engineering processes and decision-making
(Chai et al., 2023; Koch, Georgieva, Kasireddy, Akinci, & Fieguth, 2015; Liu et al., 2021).
Table 5 shows a topic analysis of qualitative detection approach performance. The study tackles accuracy
and dependability, simplicity of use and learning curve, project fit criteria, and safety concerns to inform
stakeholders' detection method viewpoints. Participants said laser scanning produces 3D point clouds reliably.
Complex point cloud laser scanning and analysis are difficult. Table 5 lists project-specific tunnel depth,
diameter, and segment material compatibility detection methods. Whole station or digital image correlation may
help deep utility tunnels with limited access, while visual inspection may help minor ones. Lights, fall prevention,
and tunnel inspection were emphasized. Table 6 displays descriptive survey stakeholders' detection technique
performance opinions. Users scored each detection method's usability, reliability, learning curve, and restrictions
using Likert scales and open-ended comments. Most accurate and easiest, laser scanning confirmed stakeholders'
misalignment detection faith (Singh et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022).
Visual examination is easier to learn than ultrasonic testing, say participants. Visual inspection's subjectivity
and laser scanning's line-of-sight limitations were acknowledged. Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate stakeholders'
detection method pros, cons, and tunnel engineering suitability. The findings identify and reduce tunnel segment
misalignment. Table 7 shows experimental accuracy (% error) and detection speed for each technique. Mean,
standard deviation, minimum, and maximum data illustrate stakeholders’ detection technique performance
consistency and variability throughout investigations. The table shows that the total station had the lowest mean
error (1.34%), followed by the laser scanner (2.15%) and digital image correlation (2.79%). UT and visual
inspection had substantial mean errors of 3.08% and 5.23%. Total stations may detect misalignments better than
UT and visual inspection. The fastest mean detection time was laser scanner (4.12 minutes), followed by total
station (5.79 minutes) and digital image correlation (8.52 minutes). Mean UT and eye exam detection times are
7.85 and 9.23 minutes. These findings imply that laser scanner and total station detection speeds may boost
tunnel engineering project efficiency. Table 7 illustrates stakeholder detection speed and accuracy. Trial results
inform stakeholders' detection system selection and deployment based on accuracy, project schedules, and
resources.
Tunnel engineers study accuracy and detection speed. The accuracy percentages of each misalignment
detecting method show its reliability. Lower mean error rates make laser scanning and total station
measurements more accurate than ultrasonic and visual assessment. Total stations and laser scanning help tunnel
engineers measure properly. Ultrasonic and visual tests have greater mistakes, suggesting they may not diagnose
misalignment. Speeds of detection affect tunnel engineering decisions, especially in time-sensitive projects. To
improve project efficiency, laser scanning and total station measurements increase misalignment mean detection
times. This could help large tunnel construction projects discover and rectify misalignments rapidly to fulfil
schedules and budgets. Speed and accuracy must be balanced because faster detection systems may lose precision.
Study results are useful, but limitations must be addressed. Biases, sample size, and real-world duplication
are limitations. These limitations balance the findings and encourage further investigation and improvement.
These constraints can be addressed in future studies to improve tunnel engineering validity and application.
A study shows tunnel engineering misalignment detectors' speed and precision. These findings assist
stakeholders choose tunnel construction and maintenance detection methods based on project constraints.
Researchers find boundaries and ways to improve tunnel infrastructure safety and reliability.

CONCLUSION

Tunnel segment misalignment detection techniques are disclosed as a result of extensive research. Different
 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 17 / 20

methods with differing precision and speed can identify misalignments. The most precise and fastest scanning
method was the laser total station. Given the subjectivity of eye perception, rough surfaces might not be suitable
for ultrasonic testing. Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences with the detection approach were also
qualitatively analysed. Stakeholders selected straightforward, trustworthy techniques. Quantitative data
illustrates detecting consequences in real-world scenarios. The report states that the selection of detection
methods should be based on project needs. Stakeholders can improve operational effectiveness, misalignment
detection, tunnel infrastructure project integrity, and safety by being aware of the advantages and disadvantages
of each technique. Numerous techniques for detecting tunnel segment misalignment were found in the extensive
investigation. DIC and laser scanning were more accurate than visual examination, total station, and UT.
Misalignments were best measured using laser scanners, followed by DIC. At 100%, visual inspection proved to be
the most inaccurate.
For two key reasons, misalignment faults in modern tunnels have far more significant ramifications than in
older ones. First, breakthrough offsets are difficult to accommodate due to the lining and overall infrastructure of
tunnels, as well as the combination of tunnels with bridges or other underground constructions like metro
stations. If they are, however, they may result in tracks with high-curvature tracks (smoothed offsets), which tend
to slow down trains. Second, survey mistakes frequently result in significant delays and extra expenses.
The ways of detecting speed varied. More quickly than total station, UT, DIC, and visual, a laser scanner was
discovered. Laser scanning increases efficiency and saves time by quickly identifying misalignments. Viewpoints
on stakeholders' detecting techniques were also revealed via topic analysis. Stakeholders' lists were topped by
laser scanner usability. Stakeholders claim that the entire station method was the most reliable. Experiments
indicate that UT and DIC are limited by surface characteristics and forms of misalignment. While UT struggled on
uneven surfaces, DIC required enough illumination and surface preparation in order to take images. These
findings highlight how crucial surface and climatic factors are when choosing a project detection method. This
paper investigates the limitations and effectiveness of tunnel segment misalignment detecting systems.
Comprehending these results aids stakeholders in developing and utilizing detecting systems to enhance the
precision, effectiveness, and security of tunnel infrastructure projects.
The tunnel segment misalignment identification in this study is beneficial to tunnel engineering. Stakeholder
decision-making is supported by the analysis of detection tactics. The pros and cons of each technique are shown
by data, allowing experts to choose the one that will work best for the project, the surrounding environment, and
the surface conditions. The precision and effectiveness of misalignment detection enhance the integrity and safety
of tunnel infrastructure projects. Second, qualitative insights into the practical consequences of detection methods
are added to quantitative data through theme analysis of stakeholders' viewpoints and experiences. This study
evaluates detection systems based on end-user characteristics such as perceived dependability, simplicity, and
limitations. These insights enhance the ability to identify misalignments and make decisions in the actual world.
It is simpler to apply tunnel engineering detection techniques with both quantitative and qualitative data.
Laser scanning detects tunnel infrastructure misalignments better. Table 3 tests show that laser scanning is
more accurate and efficient than other detecting methods. Visual examination, ultrasonic testing, and digital
image correlation always make more mistakes than laser scanning. The faster mean detection times of laser
scanning (Table 7) show misalignment detection efficiency. The evidence strongly suggests that laser scanning
detects misalignments better than prior methods. Stakeholder interviews and surveys support tunnel laser
scanning. Laser scanning produced 3D tunnel section point clouds quickly and accurately. Because laser scanning
can detect tiny misalignments that other technologies overlook, 85% of tunnel engineers voted it the most
accurate and efficient misalignment detection tool. This confirms experimental results and demonstrates laser
scanning's engineering applications. Tunnel engineering is affected by research beyond its outcomes. The project
uses laser scanning and digital picture correlation to manage tunnel infrastructure data-driven. These
technologies will revolutionise regular inspection misalignment detection and rectification, improving tunnel
infrastructure safety, dependability, and efficiency worldwide. The research improves tunnel engineering and
industry standards.

RESEARCH APPLICATION

This research applies to tunnelling. Engineers and project managers might use laser scanning or digital image
correlation for tunnel infrastructure misalignment detection. Technology improves misalignment detection
accuracy and efficiency, eliminating structural concerns and improving safety. Stakeholders' detection technique
usability and reliability experiences can teach practitioners. User preferences and concerns might guide training
18 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

and equipment procurement to ensure detection method use. Addressing stakeholder feedback on simplicity and
dependability can boost user happiness and detection method confidence, improving project outcomes. Limited
investigation suggests misalignment identifying technology innovation. These findings may help tunnel engineers
develop innovative methods to overcome obstacles and foresee issues. Enhanced detection technologies can assist
the company meet changing needs and maintain tunnel infrastructure networks. It examines tunnel engineering
practice but has theoretical ramifications. Testing and developing tunnel engineering misalignment detection
technologies has theoretical implications. This research empirically examines detection methods and stakeholder
perceptions to create and assess field theoretical models and frameworks.
This study may affect engineering technology adoption and innovation dissemination. Technology acceptance
and diffusion models may benefit from stakeholders' views on advanced detection technology adoption and
deployment. This is essential for developing laser scanning and digital image correlation technologies, whose
adoption dynamics are being studied. Misalignment detection systems' limits and potential for improvement may
spark engineering innovation and technological progress theories. Technology lifecycle, convergence, and
innovation diffusion theories may explain how new detection methods become engineering standards. Tunnel
engineering practice is the centre of this study, but its conclusions apply to misalignment discovery, technology
adoption, and engineering innovation frameworks. Tunnel engineering may use better sensing devices due to
studies in these areas.
The laser scan and digital picture correlation improve tunnel misalignment detection. Laser scanning quickly
creates accurate 3D point clouds of tunnel segments, revealing their condition. Laser scanning quickly finds
structural deformations and misalignments that visual inspection may miss. Digital image correlation tracks
misalignment trends with high-resolution cameras and full-field assessment. Digital picture correlation strain and
displacement data can assist engineers detect and rectifying misalignment before it becomes structural. The
research reveals that these technologies improve detection accuracy and efficiency. The study demonstrated that
laser scanning and digital image correlation had lower mean error rates than optical and ultrasonic testing. Laser
scanning and total station measurements' faster mean detection times demonstrate efficiency. This implies laser
scanning and digital picture correlation improve tunnel infrastructure misalignment identification.
The research stakeholders included tunnel engineers, construction managers, and inspectors. Surveys,
interviews, and theme analyses revealed stakeholder requirements and perspectives. Laser scanning's
misalignment detection speed and precision impressed stakeholders. This supports the findings and shows their
practicality. The research suggests tunnel engineers utilise laser scanning and digital picture correlation to
discover misalignments. Modern advances in misalignment detection enable proactive tunnel infrastructure
maintenance and safety. Engineering data-driven decision-making and sensing technology have theoretical and
practical implications. Laser scanning and digital picture correlation detect tunnel infrastructure misalignment.
Examples, research, and stakeholder involvement show how these technologies may improve tunnel engineering.
Clear, accurate communication and linking theoretical implications to real discoveries improve communication.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This work provides tunnel segment misalignment detection techniques despite its flaws. One detecting
technique can overlook field alternatives. Generalizability is diminished by unrealistic experimental conditions.
Stakeholders' varying subjective opinions and experiences were incorporated into the qualitative investigation.
Numerous research ideas can address these problems and advance the subject. First, further methods of
detection evaluation would demonstrate their effectiveness. Conducting trials on various surfaces and settings
could enhance its applicability. Machine learning and data analytics may help identify misalignments more
accurately and open the door to new approaches. Hybrid systems could be developed in the future to improve
detecting techniques. Research on longitudinal detection methods may prove advantageous for long-term
surveillance. The cooperation of researchers, industry participants, and regulators is necessary to standardize the
safety and integrity of tunnel infrastructure.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There was no conflict of interest declared by the authors.

 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811 19 / 20

REFERENCES

Ahmad, M., Hu, J. L., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Ahmad, F., Tang, X. W., Rahman, Z. U., . . . Abrar, M. (2021).
Rockburst hazard prediction in underground projects using two intelligent classification techniques: A
comparative study. Symmetry, 13(4), 632.
Aldibaja, M., Suganuma, N., Yoneda, K., & Yanase, R. (2022). Challenging environments for precise mapping
using GNSS/INS-RTK systems: Reasons and analysis. Remote Sensing, 14(16).
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14164058
Ali, L., Nawaz, A., Bai, Y., Raza, A., Anwar, M. K., Raheel Shah, S. A., & Raza, S. S. (2020). Numerical simulations
of GFRP-Reinforced columns having polypropylene and polyvinyl alcohol fibers. Complexity, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8841795
Al-khafaji, R. B. Y. (2024). Using Technology and Algorithms for Face Detection and Recognition Using Digital
Image Processing and Relying on a Computer Vision Sensor. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and
Management, 9(1), 25018. https://doi.org/10.55267/iadt.07.14328
Ashcroft, B., Børresen, B., Mamia, F., & Labe, L. (2023). Condition assessment survey and repair work of the
headrace tunnel for the Warangoi HPP. In Expanding underground-knowledge and passion to make a positive
impact on the world (pp. 1745-1752). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003348030-209
Beirne, C., Jayakumaran, R., & Lee, L. S. (2023, November). Design considerations for an innovative precast
lining for a mined roadheader tunnel in rock. In ATC 2023: Australian Tunnelling Conference: Conference
Proceedings: Trends and Transitions in Tunnelling (pp. 477-486). Auckland, New Zealand: Engineers Australia.
Braga, V. B. M., Zapico, J. C. S., Tyagi, V., & Bono, R. (2023). Challenges experienced during simultaneous backfill
grouting using single shield large diameter TBM driven in a sharp negative slope. In Expanding underground-
knowledge and passion to make a positive impact on the world (pp. 1175-1182).
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003348030-139
Chai, S., Yan, Y., Hu, B., Wang, H., Hu, J., Chen, J., . . . Zhou, Y. (2023). The optimization of secondary lining
construction time for shield tunnels based on longitudinal mechanical properties. Applied Sciences (Switzerland),
13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/app131910772
Chen, K. H., Zhang, Z., Liao, S. M., & Peng, F. L. (2016). Durability of joint components of shield tunnel under
high water pressure in erosion environment. Procedia Engineering, 165, 282-289.
Daoust, T., Pomerleau, F., & Barfoot, T. D. (2016, June). Light at the end of the tunnel: High-speed lidar-based
train localization in challenging underground environments. In 2016 13th Conference on Computer and Robot
Vision (CRV) (pp. 93-100). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Helmers, H., Wagner, L., Garza, C. E., Reichmuth, S. K., Oliva, E., Philipps, S. P., . . . Bett, A. W. (2015, May).
Photovoltaic cells with increased voltage output for optical power supply of sensor electronics. In Proceedings of
the AMA Conferences (Vol. 2015, pp. 519-524). https://doi.org/10.5162/sensor2015/d1.4
Hu, M., Sun, J., Wu, B., Wu, H., & Xu, Z. (2024). Shield tunnel (segment) uplift prediction and control based on
interpretable machine learning. Sustainability, 16(2), 910.
Hu, M., Zhang, H., Wu, B., Li, G., & Zhou, L. (2022). Interpretable predictive model for shield attitude control
performance based on XGboost and SHAP. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22948-
w
Huang, H., Cheng, W., Zhou, M., Chen, J., & Zhao, S. (2020). Towards automated 3d inspection of water leakages
in shield tunnel linings using mobile laser scanning data. Sensors (Switzerland), 20(22).
https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226669
Ji, C., Su, X., Qin, Z., & Nawaz, A. (2022). Probability analysis of construction risk based on noisy-or gate bayesian
networks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 217, 107974.
Keil, J. (2019). Lattice design, commissioning and operation challenges for PETRA IV. Retrieved from
https://bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/452030/files/Workshop_Beam_Test_And_Comissioning_Proceedings-
Keil.pdf
Khokhar, C. S., Bansal, V., & Mishra, E. (2020). Cross passage construction methods for twin-tube tunnel projects
in urban areas. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology (JRMTT), 26(1), 27-40.
Koch, C., Georgieva, K., Kasireddy, V., Akinci, B., & Fieguth, P. (2015). A review on computer vision based defect
20 / 20 Wu X. et al. / J INFORM SYSTEMS ENG, 9(4), 27811

detection and condition assessment of concrete and asphalt civil infrastructure. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 29(2), 196-210.
Liu, Y., Chen, H., Zhang, L., & Wang, X. (2021). Risk prediction and diagnosis of water seepage in operational
shield tunnels based on random forest. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27(7), 539-552.
Ma, S. Y., Ye, X. W., Liu, Z. X., Ding, Y., Zhang, D., & Sun, F. (2024). Mechanical behavior monitoring and load
inversion analysis of large-diameter underwater shield tunnel during construction. Sensors, 24(4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/s24041310
Nawaz, A., Su, X., & Nasir, I. M. (2021). BIM adoption and its impact on planning and scheduling influencing
mega plan projects-(CPEC-) quantitative approach. Complexity, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8818296
Qiu, D., Liang, H., Wang, Z., Tong, Y., & Wan, S. (2022). Hybrid-supervised-learning-based automatic image
segmentation for water leakage in subway tunnels. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(22).
https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211799
Singh, P., Mittal, R., Gupta, S. K., & Khan, A. H. (2023). Construction of platform tunnel by conventional
tunneling below heritage buildings. In Expanding underground-knowledge and passion to make a positive
impact on the world (pp. 2253-2259). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003348030-271
Tian, L., Li, Q., He, L., & Zhang, D. (2023). Image-range stitching and semantic-based crack detection methods
for tunnel inspection vehicles. Remote Sensing, 15(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15215158
Valiante, N., Elgarhi, H., Lazzarin, F., Crapp, R., & Stucchi, R. (2023). Development of a tension-resistant single
pass segmental lining in high pressure tunnels. The experience of Snowy 2.0 (Australia). In Expanding
underground-knowledge and passion to make a positive impact on the world (pp. 1477-1485).
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003348030-176
Wang, K., Li, P., Liu, Y., Li, H., Men, Y., & Huang, Y. (2021). Research on the present situation and development
trend of subway tunnel inspection vehicle. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1203(2),
022126.
Xiao, Z., Ma, C., Huang, J., Liang, L., Lu, W., Hong, K., . . . Bernholc, J. (2019). Design of atomically precise
nanoscale negative differential resistance devices. Advanced Theory and Simulations, 2(2), 1800172.
Xue, Y., Shi, P., Jia, F., & Huang, H. (2022). 3D reconstruction and automatic leakage defect quantification of
metro tunnel based on SfM-Deep learning method. Underground Space (China), 7(3), 311-323.
Zhang, Z., Zhu, X., & Wei, R. (2022). A model test on an open-cut tunnel structure under the effect of a stick-slip
normal fault. Railway Sciences, 1(2), 169-192.
Zhao, S., Shadabfar, M., Zhang, D., Chen, J., & Huang, H. (2021). Deep learning-based classification and instance
segmentation of leakage-area and scaling images of shield tunnel linings. Structural Control and Health
Monitoring, 28(6), e2732.
Zhao, X., Han, K., Ju, J. W., Chen, X., Chen, W., & Xiong, H. (2023). Numerical analysis of size effect on the
deformation behavior and damage evolution mechanism of segmental tunnel lining rings. International Journal
of Damage Mechanics, 32(4), 600-622.