开挖方式对山岭隧道稳定性影响研究
|
摘要
以某小净距山岭隧道建设为例,采用有限元数值模拟手段分别建立了三台阶七步法、单侧壁导坑法、双侧壁导坑法三种施工方法的数值模型,并从位移、应力和塑性区方面进行了分析介绍,得到以下结论:采用三台阶七步法时拱底隆起量和拱顶沉降量最大,其次是单侧壁导坑法,最小的是双侧壁导坑法;采用双侧壁导坑法时拱顶位置处主应力最大,其次是单侧壁导坑法,最小的是三台阶七步法;采用三台阶七步法时隧道开挖以后围岩应力释放较大,围岩变得较为松散,且拱底围岩易出现应力集中,容易发生岩爆等危险;采用双侧壁导坑法施工时围岩塑性区最小,其次是单侧壁导坑法,最大的是采用三台阶七步法。最后,通过对比可知该工况下采用双侧壁导坑法时隧道的稳定性效果最好,采用三台阶七步法时效果最差。
By taking the construction of a small clear distance mountain tunnel as an example, the numerical models of three-step seven-step method, single-side-wall guide method and double-side-wall guide method are established by means of finite element numerical simulation. The displacement, stress and plastic zone are analyzed and introduced, and the following conclusions are drawn: when the three-step seven-step method is adopted, the arch bottom heave and the settlement of the arch top are the largest, followed by the three-step seven-step method. The single-sided-wall method is the smallest one, and the double-sided-wall method is the smallest one. When the double-sided-wall method is adopted, the principal stress at the vault top is the largest, followed by the single-sided-wall method, and the smallest is the three-step seven-step method. When the three-step seven-step method is adopted, the stress release of surrounding rock is larger, the surrounding rock becomes loose, and the surrounding rock at the arch foot is prone to stress concentration and rock burst. The plastic zone of surrounding rock is the smallest when using the double-sided-wall method, followed by the single-sided-wall method, and the largest is the three-step and seven-step method. Finally, the comparison shows that the stability of the tunnel is the best when the double-sided tunnel method is used, and the worst is when the three-step seven-step method is used.
By taking the construction of a small clear distance mountain tunnel as an example, the numerical models of three-step seven-step method, single-side-wall guide method and double-side-wall guide method are established by means of finite element numerical simulation. The displacement, stress and plastic zone are analyzed and introduced, and the following conclusions are drawn: when the three-step seven-step method is adopted, the arch bottom heave and the settlement of the arch top are the largest, followed by the three-step seven-step method. The single-sided-wall method is the smallest one, and the double-sided-wall method is the smallest one. When the double-sided-wall method is adopted, the principal stress at the vault top is the largest, followed by the single-sided-wall method, and the smallest is the three-step seven-step method. When the three-step seven-step method is adopted, the stress release of surrounding rock is larger, the surrounding rock becomes loose, and the surrounding rock at the arch foot is prone to stress concentration and rock burst. The plastic zone of surrounding rock is the smallest when using the double-sided-wall method, followed by the single-sided-wall method, and the largest is the three-step and seven-step method. Finally, the comparison shows that the stability of the tunnel is the best when the double-sided tunnel method is used, and the worst is when the three-step seven-step method is used.
引文
[1]徐东强,李彦奇,燕鹏.隧道不同开挖方式初期支护极限位移值[J].工业建筑,2018,48(2):110-115.
[2]关永平.隧道不同开挖方式初期支护极限位移值[J].水利与建筑工程学报,2017,15(6):227-232.
[3]郑毅,张子新.浅埋暗挖隧道开挖方式对地层扰动优化分析[J].地下空间与工程学报,2014,10(6):1372-1379.
[4]王清标,蒋金泉,路林海,等.不同开挖方式对近距离交叠隧道影响模拟研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2013,32(10):2079-2087.
[5]吴迪.隧道施工参数对地表沉降的影响研究[J].水利与建筑工程学报,2018,16(2):131-134.
[6]郝小红,郭佳.考虑超大断面顶管施工过程的地层变形数值分析[J].华北水利水电大学学报(自然科学版),2017,38(6):66-71,81.
[7]李青松.新奥法的不同施工方法下山岭隧道围岩稳定性研究[D].北京:北京交通大学,2014.
[8]蒋树屏,李建军,谢锋.隧道洞口不同开挖方法的稳定性比较分析[J].隧道建设,2007,27(S2):16-20.
[9]刁心宏,朱陈,于洋.不同开挖方案下隧道围岩稳定性及变性特征分析[J].华东交通大学学报,2017,34(1):21-27.
[10]邓稀,周亭秀.山岭隧道主洞与联络道交叉段稳定性分析[J].四川建材,2017,43(4):70-72.
[11]霍润科,李茂达,李静,等.偏压软弱围岩隧道不同施工方案的数值模拟及比较分析[J].工业建筑,2015,45(2):95-100.
[12]杨小明,张鸿,张理平,等.断层特征与掘进方法对隧道围岩稳定性影响分析[J].南昌工程学院学报,2015,34(6):5-9.
[13]韦秉旭,唐辉湘,陈尤.CRD法与上下台阶法在隧道开挖中的效果对比及数值分析[J].中外公路,2011,31(4):192-196.
[14]李翠霞,张晓琳,张海波.暗挖隧道开挖支护施工的数值模拟研究[J].西部探矿工程,2006,18(6):307-309.
[2]关永平.隧道不同开挖方式初期支护极限位移值[J].水利与建筑工程学报,2017,15(6):227-232.
[3]郑毅,张子新.浅埋暗挖隧道开挖方式对地层扰动优化分析[J].地下空间与工程学报,2014,10(6):1372-1379.
[4]王清标,蒋金泉,路林海,等.不同开挖方式对近距离交叠隧道影响模拟研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2013,32(10):2079-2087.
[5]吴迪.隧道施工参数对地表沉降的影响研究[J].水利与建筑工程学报,2018,16(2):131-134.
[6]郝小红,郭佳.考虑超大断面顶管施工过程的地层变形数值分析[J].华北水利水电大学学报(自然科学版),2017,38(6):66-71,81.
[7]李青松.新奥法的不同施工方法下山岭隧道围岩稳定性研究[D].北京:北京交通大学,2014.
[8]蒋树屏,李建军,谢锋.隧道洞口不同开挖方法的稳定性比较分析[J].隧道建设,2007,27(S2):16-20.
[9]刁心宏,朱陈,于洋.不同开挖方案下隧道围岩稳定性及变性特征分析[J].华东交通大学学报,2017,34(1):21-27.
[10]邓稀,周亭秀.山岭隧道主洞与联络道交叉段稳定性分析[J].四川建材,2017,43(4):70-72.
[11]霍润科,李茂达,李静,等.偏压软弱围岩隧道不同施工方案的数值模拟及比较分析[J].工业建筑,2015,45(2):95-100.
[12]杨小明,张鸿,张理平,等.断层特征与掘进方法对隧道围岩稳定性影响分析[J].南昌工程学院学报,2015,34(6):5-9.
[13]韦秉旭,唐辉湘,陈尤.CRD法与上下台阶法在隧道开挖中的效果对比及数值分析[J].中外公路,2011,31(4):192-196.
[14]李翠霞,张晓琳,张海波.暗挖隧道开挖支护施工的数值模拟研究[J].西部探矿工程,2006,18(6):307-309.