岩土力学 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (3): 837-848.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2019.0792

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

砂土地层浅埋盾构隧道开挖渗流稳定性的 模型试验和计算研究

米博1, 2,项彦勇1, 2   

  1. 1. 北京交通大学 城市地下工程教育部重点实验室,北京 100044;2. 北京交通大学 土木建筑工程学院,北京 10004
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-05 修回日期:2019-08-28 出版日期:2020-03-11 发布日期:2020-05-25
  • 作者简介:米博,男,1992年生,博士研究生,主要从事隧道及地下工程方面的研究工作
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)项目(No.2015CB057800);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(No.2017YJS148)

Model experiment and calculation analysis of excavation-seepage stability for shallow shield tunneling in sandy ground

MI Bo1, 2, XIANG Yan-yong1, 2   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China; 2. School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
  • Received:2019-05-05 Revised:2019-08-28 Online:2020-03-11 Published:2020-05-25
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (2015CB057800) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2017YJS148).

摘要: 针对浅埋盾构隧道开挖渗流对开挖面支护压力和地层失稳模式的影响问题,考虑盾构机开挖仓渣土孔隙水压力和面板及开口率的作用,设计制作了水下地层浅埋盾构隧道的开挖渗流模型并建立了附近地层沉降的量测采集系统。在不同的稳态渗流条件下,逐渐加大盾构隧道开挖仓的进土量,量测开挖面水土压力和孔隙水压力以及附近地层沉降,并配合进行了数值模拟和极限平衡计算分析。研究发现:开挖面有效土压力随开挖体积损失的增加而降低,达到极限值后保持不变;维持开挖面稳定的必要支护压力与可以容许的地层失稳范围有关,开挖面的极限有效土压力与地层的极限失稳范围相对应,是最小的必要支护压力。渗流会使开挖面的极限有效土压力增大,与开挖面?地表之间的水头差大致呈线性关系。渗流会使开挖面前方地层的极限失稳范围增大,但对后方地层极限失稳范围的影响不大;对于开挖面?地表相对水头差较小(小于或等于0.33)的情况,渗流主要起到增大地层沉降量的作用,地层的极限失稳范围只是略有增大;对于相对水头差较大(大于0.33并小于1.00)的情况,渗流主要起到增大地层极限失稳范围的作用,而地层最大沉降量有所减小;对于相对水头差很大(大于或等于1.00)的情况,渗流对地层沉降量的影响和对极限失稳范围的影响都基本上已经达到了极限。地层的极限失稳范围可以自下而上地划分成3个部分,开挖面高度范围内的倒棱锥体,地表以下一定深度范围内的(顶部)倒棱台体,以及两者中间一定高度的(中部)倒棱台体,其中,棱锥体的纵向锥角(或纵向破裂角)及横向锥角(或横向破裂角)都随着相对水头差的增大而增大,对地层极限失稳范围的影响最为显著。

关键词: 砂土地层, 浅埋盾构隧道开挖?渗流, 开挖面稳定性, 模型试验, 计算分析

Abstract: Regarding the influence of seepage on face support pressure and ground collapse mode in shallow shield tunnel excavation, an experimental system composed of a shallow shield tunnel excavation-seepage model and a setup of measurement and data acquisition is designed and established, with consideration of pore water pressure in the excavation chamber and face plate opening ratio. The saturated soil pressures and pore water pressures at the face and settlements of surrounding strata are measured under various steady-state seepage conditions, as the soil input into the excavation chamber is gradually increased. Correspondingly, numerical simulations and limit equilibrium calculations are carried out. The major findings are: the effective earth pressure at tunnel face decreases as excavation volume loss increases, but plateaus after reaching a limit value; the necessary support pressure for face stability is related to the allowable collapse range of the stratum, the limit effective earth pressure, i.e. the minimum necessary support pressure at the tunnel face corresponds to the stratum limit collapse range. Seepage increases the limit effective earth pressure of excavation face, which shows roughly linear relationship with the hydraulic head difference between excavation face and ground surface. Seepage may increase the limit collapse range of the soil ahead of the tunnel face, but has little effect on the limit collapse range of the soil behind tunnel face; if the relative hydraulic head difference between tunnel face and ground surface is small (less than or equal to 0.33), seepage will mainly increase soil settlements, while the stratum limit collapse range only increases slightly; if the relative hydraulic head difference is large (greater than 0.33 and less than 1.00), seepage will enlarge the stratum limit collapse range, whereas the maximum settlement of stratum decreases slightly; if the relative hydraulic head difference is very large (greater than or equal to 1.00), the influences of seepage on both the settlement and limit collapse range of stratum have essentially reached their limits. The stratum limit collapse range may be divided into three zones stacking vertically: an inverted pyramid at the bottom within the height of tunnel face, an inverted prismoid at the top within a certain depth range below the ground surface and an inverted prismoid of a certain height in between; out of these three zones, the tapered angles of the inverted pyramid increase in longitudinal and transverse directions when the relative hydraulic head difference increases, and they exert the most significant influence on the limit collapse range of stratum.

Key words: sandy soil, shallow shield tunnel excavation, seepage, stability of tunnel face, model experiment, calculation analysis

中图分类号: TU441
[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] 石湛, 章铁军, 李美香, 陶司记, 伯音, 李云波, . 泥水平衡盾构仓内水平冻结温度场的模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1534-1544.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[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!