深埋高地应力隧道不同支护时机求解方法对比研究

蒋长伟; 陈子全; 汪波; 李天胜; 周子寒; 包烨明

doi:10.3973/j.issn.2096-4498.2023.01.013

隧道建设 >

2023 , Vol. 43 >Issue 1: 119 - 130

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3973/j.issn.2096-4498.2023.01.013

研究与探索

深埋高地应力隧道不同支护时机求解方法对比研究

蒋长伟 ,
陈子全 ,
汪波 ,
李天胜 ,
周子寒 ,
包烨明

展开

（1. 西南交通大学交通隧道工程教育部重点实验室，四川成都〓610031； 2. 中铁十二局集团有限公司，山西太原〓030024）

蒋长伟（2000—），男，四川成都人，西南交通大学桥梁与隧道工程专业在读硕士，研究方向为深埋高地应力硬岩隧道围岩灾变演化机制及工程对策。E-mail： jcw1679173211@163.com。*通信作者：陈子全， E-mail： chenziquan@swjtu.edu.cn。

网络出版日期: 2023-02-16

收起

Comparative Analysis of Results of Various Methods to Determine Reasonable Support Timings of DeepBuried Tunnels with High Ground Stress

JIANG Changwei ,
CHEN Ziquan ,
WANG Bo ,
LI Tiansheng ,
ZHOU Zihan ,
BAO Yeming

Expand

(1. Key Laboratory of Transportation Tunnel Engineering, Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, Sichuan, China; 2. China Railway 12th Bureau Group Co., Ltd., Taiyuan 030024, Shanxi, China)

Online published: 2023-02-16

Fold

摘要

为确定深埋高地应力隧道的合理支护时机，提高支护结构质量，降低支护成本，依托某高原深埋高地应力隧道，采用安全系数法、位移增量法和塑性区法分别求解支护结构的合理支护时机，并对比分析不同支护时机求解方法的适用性。

结果表明： 1)3种求解方法计算得到的洞壁屈服分布规律是一致的，均呈现出拱顶和仰拱比拱腰和拱脚更容易发生屈服的规律； 2)不同支护时机求解方法的求解结果不同，在同等埋深下，采用安全系数法计算得到的安全距离大于采用塑性区法和位移增量法计算得到的安全距离； 3）通过工程类比法发现，采用安全系数法求解支护时机更为合理，而塑性区法和位移增量法相对于安全系数法过于保守。

关键词： 深埋高地应力隧道; 支护时机; 安全系数法; 位移增量法; 塑性区法

本文引用格式

蒋长伟 , 陈子全 , 汪波 , 李天胜 , 周子寒 , 包烨明 . 深埋高地应力隧道不同支护时机求解方法对比研究[J]. 隧道建设, 2023 , 43(1) : 119 -130 . DOI: 10.3973/j.issn.2096-4498.2023.01.013

Abstract

To rationally determine the support timing of deepburied tunnels with high ground stress, improve the support structure quality, and reduce the support cost, a case study is conducted on a deepburied plateau tunnel with high ground stress. Safety factor, displacement increment, and plastic zone methods are employed to determine the reasonable support timing of the support structure, and the applicability of each method is analyzed and compared. The results reveal the following. (1) The distribution laws of cave wall yield calculated by the three methods agree, it is easier to yield at the crown and invert than at the waist and foot. (2) The results of support timings by the various methods differ; under the same buried depth, the safety distance obtained by the safety factor method is greater than that obtained by the plastic zone and displacement increment methods. The engineering analogy shows that the plastic zone and displacement increment methods are more conservative than the safety factor method; thus, the safety factor method is recommended when determining the support timing.

Key words： deepburied tunnel with high ground stress; support timing; safety factor method; displacement increment method; plastic zone method

Options

文章导航

〈

〉

模态框（Modal）标题

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract