岩土力学 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10): 3425-3431.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2019.2129

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

沉管隧道卵石与碎石垫层力学变形特性对比研究

王勇1, 2,穆清君3,过超4,付佰勇4,何潇4   

  1. 1. 北京交通大学 土木建筑工程学院,北京 100044;2. 中交公路规划设计院有限公司,北京 100088; 3. 中交第二航务工程局有限公司,湖北 武汉 430000;4. 中交公路长大桥建设国家工程研究中心有限公司,北京 100088
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-22 修回日期:2020-05-11 出版日期:2020-10-12 发布日期:2020-11-07
  • 作者简介:王勇,男,1980年生,博士,教授级高级工程师,主要从事岩土、隧道及地下工程研究。

Comparative study on the mechanical deformation characteristics of pebble and gravel cushion in immersed tube tunnel

WANG Yong1, 2, MU Qing-jun3, GUO Chao4, FU Bai-yong4, HE Xiao4   

  1. 1. School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China; 2. CCCC Highway Consultants Co., Ltd, Beijing 100088, China; 3. CCCC Second Harbour Engineering Co., Ltd., Wuhan, Hubei 430000, China; 4. CCCC Highway Bridges National Engineering Research Centre Co., Ltd., Beijing 100088, China
  • Received:2019-12-22 Revised:2020-05-11 Online:2020-10-12 Published:2020-11-07

摘要: 国内外沉管隧道先铺基础多采用碎石作为垫层材料,目前尚无采用卵石的先例。卵石和碎石在表面光滑度、排列接触方式、颗粒间天然空隙率等物理特性的差异性将影响其力学性能表现。通过物理模型试验和数值模拟计算,对卵石和碎石垫层的力学变形特性进行对比分析。研究表明:(1)两种材料垫层压缩曲线均呈两阶段反弯曲线变化趋势,相同荷载条件下卵石垫层压缩量较碎石高,总体割线模量较碎石低约30%。(2)垫层厚度由0.8 m变为1 m时,卵石垫层割线模量增加了13.0%,碎石垫层割线模量增加了2.2%;卵石垫层力学变形性能对垫层厚度的变化较碎石垫层更敏感。(3)预压荷载由52.5 kPa增加到84 kPa时,卵石垫层割线模量增加了23.5%,碎石垫层割线模量增加了7.6%;预压荷载越大,卵石垫层能更早达到拐点从而表现出更稳定的力学性能;增加预压荷载对卵石垫层整体力学变形性能的改善较碎石垫层更明显。(4)随沟宽增大,垫层模量在前期再压缩阶段出现模量提高,而在全加载期内总体表现为模量降低;在全荷载范围内卵石垫层对垄沟尺寸变化的敏感度低于碎石垫层。(5)碎石垫层的整体力学性能优于卵石垫层,但两种垫层材料对结构沉降和受力状态的影响相对有限;在对施工偏差敏感度充分分析的基础上,卵石可替代碎石作为沉管隧道垫层材料。(6)开展卵石级配试验研究,获取最佳卵石级配,是未来研究方向。

关键词: 沉管隧道, 卵石垫层, 碎石垫层, 力学, 变形

Abstract: Gravel was widely applied as the cushion materials for most foundations of the immersed tunnels, while the pebble as an alternative material has not been used till now. The differences in physical characteristics such as surface smoothness, alignment, contact methods and natural porosity between the gravel and pebble will affect its mechanical performance. In this paper, the mechanical deformation characteristics of pebble and gravel cushion were comparatively studied through physical modelling tests and numerical simulations. The results show that: 1) The compression curves of the two material cushions both show a two-phase anti-bending trend. The compression of pebble cushions is higher than that of the gravel under the same loading condition, whereas the overall secant modulus of pebble is approximately 30% lower than that of the gravel. 2) When the thickness of the cushion increases from 0.8 m to 1 m, a 13% increase in the secant modulus for the pebble cushion is observed, while 2.2% for the gravel. The mechanical deformation properties of the pebble cushion are more prone to be influenced by the cushion thickness than the gravel cushion. 3) When the preload increases from 52.5 kPa to 84 kPa, the secant modulus of the pebble cushion increases by 23.5%, while the modulus of the gravel cushion increases by merely 7.6%. A larger preload load leads to an earlier inflection point for the pebble cushion so as to show more stable mechanical properties. The increase in the preload load can more significantly improve the overall mechanical deformation performance for the pebble cushion than for the gravel cushion. 4) As the ditch width increases, the secant moduli of both cushions decrease. The pebble cushion is less sensitive to the changes in ditch size than the gravel cushion in the full load range. 5) The performance of the overall mechanical properties of the gravel cushion are better than the pebble cushion, but the cushion materials have limited effects on the structural settlement and stress. The pebble material can be used as an alternative cushion material for the immersed tunnels after a full analysis of the sensitivity to construction deviation. 6) Investigations on the optimal pebble grading will be the priority in the follow-up study.

Key words: immersed tube tunnel, pebble cushion, gravel cushion, dynamics, deformation

中图分类号: U 454
[1] 王江锋, 吴涵兵, 赵顺利, 杜春雪, 张淼, . 考虑压密变形的某输水隧洞红砂岩加卸载力学演化特征[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 121-130.
[2] 吴俊, 闵一凡, 征西遥, 韩晨, 牛富俊, 朱宝林, . 地质聚合物固化淤泥法制备再生细骨料的压缩变形特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 159-170.
[3] 宋义敏, 王腾腾, 许海亮, 安栋, 蒋孝东. 岩石变形局部化和破裂前兆的应变信息识别研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 171-182.
[4] 吴倩婵, 章荣军, 徐志豪, 杨钊, 郑俊杰, . 絮凝剂对固化流泥强度行为及变形特性的影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 205-216.
[5] 李晓照, 闫怀蔚, 李连杰, 戚承志. 预拉脆性岩石动态直接拉伸断裂的宏细观力学模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 217-227.
[6] 冉龙洲, 袁松, 王希宝, 张廷彪, 刘德军, 黎良仆, . 考虑围岩−盾体−注浆体−管片相互作用的深埋护盾式隧道掘进机法隧道围岩压力计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 366-376.
[7] 孙红林, 李巍, 汪莹鹤, 黄国良, 廖昕, 黄亮, . 高铁无砟轨道路基上拱变形原因及防治对策研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 389-402.
[8] 聂耀武, 胡兵, 顾雷雨, 李槟, 周全超, 李文辉, 李琦, 李霞颖, . 二氧化碳地质封存协同上覆煤矿开采的安全风险评估数值模拟研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 491-506.
[9] 孙志亮, 邵敏, 王叶晨梓, 刘忠, 任伟中, 柏巍, 李朋, . 管道破损诱发地面沉降细观模拟与影响因素分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 507-518.
[10] 张春瑞, 纪洪广, 付桢, 张月征, 宋宇, 田竹华, 范文博, . 白云石对粉砂岩物理力学性质影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2661-2675.
[11] 梁金平, 李小瑞, 荆浩勇, 侯公羽, 苏占东, 张明磊, . 厚壁圆筒围岩试件的屈服机制及卸荷变形破坏特征[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2676-2686.
[12] 王想君, 李英明, 赵光明, 孟祥瑞, 范朝涛, 付强, . 围岩变形作用下考虑杆体屈服和锚固界面滑移的全长锚固锚杆力学解析方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2687-2702.
[13] 周雄雄, 黄佳铄, 李若婷, 张建余, . 堆石料湿化变形的修正剑桥模型及其参数研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2703-2710.
[14] 蔡玉娟, 蔡静森, 任少文, 刘锴, 陈劲, 李漪, . 岩溶区非均质岩组岩体力学参数快速估计方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2749-2762.
[15] 刘一鸣, 李振, 冯国瑞, 杨鹏, 白锦文, 黄炳雄, 李东, . 循环加卸载下裂隙砂岩声−热响应特征及前兆规律[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2773-2791.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!