岩土力学 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (5): 1534-1544.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2024.1033CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2024.1033

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

泥水平衡盾构仓内水平冻结温度场的模型试验

石湛1,章铁军1,李美香2,陶司记1,伯音1,李云波3   

  1. 1. 长江勘测规划设计研究有限责任公司,湖北 武汉 430014;2. 南京市江宁区堤防水库管理所,江苏 南京 211103; 3. 江苏力恒工程咨询有限公司,江苏 南京 210014
  • 收稿日期:2024-08-08 接受日期:2024-11-12 出版日期:2025-05-06 发布日期:2025-05-07
  • 作者简介:石湛,男,1986年生,硕士,高级工程师,主要从事隧道与地下建筑工程等方面研究工作。E-mail: 278724098@qq.com

Model test of horizontal freezing reinforcement in mud tank of slurry balanced shield

SHI Zhan1, ZHANG Tie-jun1, LI Mei-xiang2, TAO Si-ji1, BO Yin1, LI Yun-bo3   

  1. 1. Changjiang Survey, Planning and Design Research Co., Ltd., Wuhan, Hubei 430014, China; 2. Nanjing Jiangning District Dike Reservoir Management, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211103, China; 3. Jiangsu Liheng Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd., Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China
  • Received:2024-08-08 Accepted:2024-11-12 Online:2025-05-06 Published:2025-05-07

摘要: 为了获得盾构解困冻结过程中泥水仓内温度场的演变规律,以南京市江宁区新济洲供水管线过江廊道盾构解困工程为原型,依据相似理论进行了盾构内部水平冻结温度场的模型试验,研究大孔距冻结过程中泥水仓内温度场演变过程及分布特征,获得如下结论:通过盾构超前地质探孔和注浆孔布置的20根冻结管,在冻结管最大间距为3.12 m条件下,75 d时可将直径为6 480 mm的盾构泥水仓内冻实,而冻结施工至135 d后泥水仓内冻土平均温度达到−13 ℃,纵向温差约为4.4 ℃,整体冻结效果较均匀,满足盾构开仓时的封水和承载要求。冻结施工中临时停冻会导致泥水仓内冻土冷量重新分布,停冻10 h时整体冻结壁温度升高至−14~−10 ℃,而重新冻结20 h后冻结壁即可恢复到停冻前状态。冻结结束45 d后盾构泥水仓内冻土平均温度升高至−4 ℃,满足盾构复推施工要求,而冻结管位置冻土温度回升至0 ℃还需要约20 d,并在0 ℃附近维持约125 d。施工中可采取强制解冻或循环泥浆等辅助措施来加快盾构泥水仓内冻土的解冻速度,洞内水平冻结方法是构建盾构仓内常压检修环境的有效地层改良手段。

关键词: 人工冻结, 泥水平衡盾构, 盾构解困, 泥水仓内冻结, 模型试验

Abstract: In order to obtain the temperature field evolution in the mud silo during the freezing process for shield rescue, a model test of horizontal freezing inside the shield was designed based on similitude theory. This was applied to the tunneling project in the Yangtze River corridor of the Xinjizhou water supply pipeline in Jiangning District, Nanjing. The temperature evolution and distribution characteristics in the mud silo during freezing were studied, leading to the following conclusions. Firstly, using 20 freezing pipes arranged through geological exploration and grouting holes, the slurry chamber of the shield (diameter 6 480 mm) could be completely frozen within 75 days, with a maximum pipe spacing of 3.12 m. After 135 days of freezing, the average temperature of the frozen soil in the slurry chamber reached −13 ℃, with a longitudinal temperature difference of approximately 4.4 ℃. The overall freezing effect was uniform, meeting the water sealing and bearing requirements for shield chamber opening, thus facilitating shield rescue construction. Secondly, temporary suspension of freezing during construction led to temperature redistribution in the frozen soil of the slurry chamber. A 10-hour suspension caused the frozen wall temperature to rise to −14 ℃ to −10 ℃, but it returned to its pre-suspension state after 20 hours of resumed freezing. Thirdly, 45 days post-freezing, the average temperature of the frozen soil in the shield slurry chamber rose to −4 ℃, meeting the requirements for shield re-pushing construction. It took about 20 days for the frozen soil temperature at the freezing pipe position to rise back to 0 ℃, remaining around 0 ℃ for approximately 125 days. During construction, auxiliary measures like forced thawing or circulating mud can accelerate the thawing of frozen soil in the shield’s slurry chamber. The horizontal freezing method in tunnels is an effective technique for improving formation to construct a maintenance environment in the shield chamber.

Key words: artificial ground freezing, slurry balanced shield, shield relief, freezing in mud tank, model test

中图分类号: TU 411
[1] 来志强, 白盛元, 陈林, 邹维列, 徐书岭, 赵连军, . 环式管袋堆场蓄淤脱水特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2805-2815.
[2] 黄大维, 卢文剑, 罗文俊, 余珏, . 盾构隧道同步注浆对砂土地层竖向位移与周围土压力影响试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2837-2846.
[3] 宋伟涛, 张佩, 杜修力, 林庆涛, . 土性对浅埋盾构隧道施工地层响应影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2179-2188.
[4] 梁庆国, 李景, 张崇辉, 刘彤彤, 孙志涛, . 基底均匀膨胀作用下黄土−泥岩复合地层隧道衬砌力学响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1811-1824.
[5] 杨柏, 覃超, 张银海, 王威, 肖世国, . 下伏溶洞的高嵌岩比基桩承载特性模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1839-1850.
[6] 刘红帅, 杨健生, 宋东松, 孙强强, . 近场脉冲和非脉冲地震动作用下干砂场地响应的离心振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1429-1441.
[7] 柴红涛, 文松霖, . 组合荷载作用下桩基承载力屈服包络线特性离心模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1556-1562.
[8] 任一青, 陈保国, 任国卿, 杨振忠, 徐方. 涵顶-涵侧减载条件下高填方箱涵施工期受力特性[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1153-1162.
[9] 郭焕明, 张虎, 丑亚玲, 郑波, 胡金涛, 韩善博, . 径向冻融过程中软黏土水热力试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 905-915.
[10] 裴媛媛, 龙建辉, 郭师苡, 安成纪, 翁杭雨, 张吉宁, . 不同荷载作用下折角式加筋土挡墙应力-应变特征模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 539-550.
[11] 吴学震, 夏亚歆, 李大勇, 游先辉, 单宁康, 肖贞科, 陈祥, . 新型劲性水泥土组合桩内界面抗剪强度试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 467-478.
[12] 王兵, 胡小波, 孔楠楠. 真空联合电渗加固超细颗粒疏浚土试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3523-3533.
[13] 刘文静, 邓辉, 周昕. 地震作用下含双层韧性剪切带高陡岩质边坡动力响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3534-3548.
[14] 陈怀林, 杨涛, 饶云康, 张哲, 吴红刚, 谢江伟, 滕汉卿. 基于分段式滑面应力测试系统的滑面应力计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3562-3573.
[15] 孙旻洋, 王忠瑾, 谢新宇, 张日红, 娄扬, 朱大勇, . 饱和黏土中能源群桩热力特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 382-390.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!