Anti-seismic effect analysis of two kinds of surrounding rock grouting measures in the shallow and eccentric pressure section of tunnel portal
-
摘要: 为进一步提高隧道洞口浅埋偏压段的震时安全性，依托某铁路隧道洞口段工程，利用有限差分数值计算软件对两种围岩注浆抗震措施的抗震效果进行了研究，对比分析了围岩采用接触注浆与间隔注浆两种抗震措施对隧道衬砌结构位移以及内力的影响。研究结果表明：围岩采用接触注浆抗震措施后，二衬结构横向及纵向位移分别减小了86.7%、38.1%，轴力及弯矩平均减小了45.12%、64.20%，最小安全系数平均提高了61.36%；围岩采用间隔注浆抗震措施后，二衬结构横向及纵向位移分别减小了49.3%、23.8%，轴力及弯矩平均减小了39.42%、44.90%，最小安全系数平均提高了43.11%；围岩采用接触注浆抗震措施的抗震效果优于间隔注浆抗震措施。研究成果可为隧道洞口段抗震技术的发展提供参考。Abstract: In order to further improve the safety of the shallow overburden and eccentric pressure section of the tunnel portal during earthquake, based on a railway tunnel portal section project, the seismic effect of two kinds of surrounding rock grouting anti-seismic measures were studied by using the finite difference numerical calculation software, and the influence of two kinds of anti-seismic measures of contact grouting and interval grouting on the displacement and internal force of the tunnel lining structure is compared and analyzed. After the contact grouting is adopted in the surrounding rock, the results show that the lateral and longitudinal displacements of the secondary lining structure are reduced by 86.7% and 38.1% respectively, the axial force and bending moment are reduced by 45.12% and 64.20% on average, and the minimum safety factor is increased by 61.36% on average; after interval grouting, the lateral and longitudinal displacements of the secondary lining structure are reduced by 49.3% and 23.8% respectively, the axial force and bending moment are reduced by 39.42% and 44.90% on average, and the minimum safety factor is increased by 43.11% on average. The anti-seismic effect of contact grouting is better than that of interval grouting. The research results can provide reference for the development of anti-seismic technology of tunnel portal section.
-
-
[1] 李天斌. 汶川特大地震中山岭隧道变形破坏特征及影响因素分析[J]. 工程地质学报, 2008, 16(6):742-750. [LI T B. Failure characteristics and influence factor analysis of mountain tunnels at epicenter zones of great Wenchuan earthquake[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2008, 16(6):742-750.(in Chinese)]
[2] 王泽军, 陈铁林, 崔光耀, 等. 强震区隧道洞口软硬岩交接段围岩注浆抗震措施效果分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报, 2018, 29(4):96-102. [WANG Z J, CHEN T L, CUI G Y, et al. Aseismic effect of grouting measures for tunnel portal structure at interface between soft and hard rock in high-intensity earthquake zone[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2018, 29(4):96-102.(in Chinese)]
[3] 许劲松. 强震作用下山岭隧道洞口段典型震害的机理研究[D]. 成都:西南交通大学, 2016.[XU J S. Study on failure mechanism of typical seismic damage at mountain tunnel portal section under strong earthquake[D]. Chengdu:Southwest Jiaotong University, 2016.(in Chinese)] [4] 崔光耀, 王明年, 林国进, 等. 汶川地震公路隧道洞口段震害机理及抗震对策研究[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2011, 48(6):6-10. [CUI G Y, WANG M N, LIN G J, et al. Study of the earthquake damage mechanism and aseismatic countermeasure of a highway tunnel portal section in the Wenchuan seismic disaster area[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2011, 48(6):6-10.(in Chinese)]
[5] 崔光耀, 王明年, 于丽, 等. 汶川地震公路隧道洞口结构震害分析及震害机理研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2013, 35(6):1084-1091. [CUI G Y, WANG M N, YU L, et al. Seismic damage and mechanism of portal structure of highway tunnels in Wenchuan Earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 35(6):1084-1091.(in Chinese)]
[6] 吴旭阳, 梁庆国. 宋家山隧道洞口段注浆加固围岩的抗震分析[J]. 铁道建筑, 2015(2):73-75.[WU X Y, LIANG Q G. Seismic analysis on surrounding rock reinforced by grouting in portal section of Song Jiashan tunnel[J]. Railway Engineering, 2015 (2):73-75.(in Chinese)]
[7] 吴志刚, 李定越. 论浅埋偏压隧道围岩垂直压力的分布规律[J]. 工程建设与设计, 2019(18):82-83.[WU Z G, LI D Y. Discussion on the distribution law of vertical pressure of surrounding rock of shallow buried biased tunnel[J]. Construction & Design for Engineering, 2019 (18):82-83.(in Chinese)]
[8] 张治国, 姜蕴娟, 刘明, 等. 考虑黏聚力及地震力的浅埋偏压隧道围岩压力[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2018, 47(4):780-790. [ZHANG Z G, JIANG Y J, LIU M, et al. Rock pressure of shallow unsymmetrical-loading tunnels considering the cohesion and earthquake action[J]. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology, 2018, 47(4):780-790.(in Chinese)]
[9] 张福聚. 公路浅埋偏压隧道地震力响应数值分析及研究[D]. 天津:河北工业大学, 2015.[ZHANG F J. Numerical analysis and research on seismic response of shallow road tunnel under unsymmetrical pressure[D]. Tianjin:Hebei University of Technology, 2015.(in Chinese)] [10] 张斌伟, 刘万锋. 强震区浅埋偏压山岭隧道抗震数值分析[J]. 陇东学院学报, 2014, 25(3):39-45. [ZHANG B W, LIU W F. Numerical analysis of the anti-seism of shallow and bias tunnel in strong earthquake regions[J]. Journal of Longdong University, 2014, 25(3):39-45.(in Chinese)]
[11] 崔光耀, 左奎现, 王明年, 等. 强震区高岩温隧道阻热抗震技术研究[J]. 铁道工程学报, 2017, 34(9):83-87. [CUI G Y, ZUO K X, WANG M N, et al. Research on the heat resistant and anti-seismic technology of high rock temperature tunnel in meizoseismal area[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2017, 34(9):83-87.(in Chinese)]
[12] 中国人民共和国铁道部. 铁路隧道设计规范:TB 10003-2005[S]. 北京:中国铁道出版社, 2005.[Ministry of Railways of the People's Republic of China. Code for design on tunnel of railway:TB 10003-2005[S]. Beijing:China Railway Publishing House, 2005. (in Chinese)]
-
期刊类型引用(11)
1. 管李义，刘冰洋，王作钰. 湖北恩施州铁路选线滑坡隐患识别与成因分析. 大地测量与地球动力学. 2023(11): 1107-1111 . 
百度学术
2. 张晨皓，李峥. 基于LORA的频发带山地泥石流检测系统设计. 牡丹江师范学院学报(自然科学版). 2022(03): 31-34 . 百度学术
3. 李益敏，袁静，蒋德明，王东驰，刘心知. 基于GIS的西南高山峡谷区滑坡风险性评价——以怒江州泸水市为例. 西北师范大学学报(自然科学版). 2021(06): 94-102 . 百度学术
4. 周海清，肖前，彭岳，李灿，邱琼. 恩施新塘高坎子二次滑坡稳定性分析与工程防治方案优选. 沈阳大学学报(自然科学版). 2020(02): 147-152 . 百度学术
5. 徐辉，张少杰，黎力，刘敦龙. 基于水土耦合物理机制的区域滑坡概率预报技术研究. 灾害学. 2019(04): 86-91 . 百度学术
6. 张秦华，张华勋，刘晓娟，张志沛. 泾阳县地质灾害时空分布规律与形成条件研究. 地下水. 2018(04): 158-160+170 . 百度学术
7. 李绍红，朱建东，王少阳，吴礼舟. 考虑降雨类型的基岩型浅层边坡稳定性分析方法. 水文地质工程地质. 2018(02): 131-135+149 . 百度学术
8. 李关博阳. 降雨型滑坡的预警阈值研究现状. 科技展望. 2017(09): 277 . 百度学术
9. 李璐，温宗周，张阳阳，董勋凯，王真. 基于RBF神经网络滑坡灾害发生概率预报方法. 西安工程大学学报. 2017(04): 521-526 . 百度学术
10. 张夏冉，殷坤龙，李烨，夏辉，付小林. 库水位下降和降雨对重庆万州下坪滑坡稳定性的影响. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2017(02): 22-29 . 本站查看
11. 杨小凤，朱军，曹云刚，龚竞，曹振宇，尹灵芝. 基于不同方法的泥石流危险性评价对比分析——以四川汶川七盘沟泥石流为例. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2017(01): 22-29+61 . 本站查看
其他类型引用(9)
计量
- 文章访问数: 340
- HTML全文浏览量: 165
- PDF下载量: 390
- 被引次数: 20
下载:
邮件订阅
RSS