Analysis on the effect of pile-raft anti-seismic measures for the tunnel section of weak surrounding rock in strong earthquake area
-
摘要:
为进一步提高地震时软弱围岩铁路隧道安全性及稳定性，以玉磨铁路新平隧道工程作为依托，利用FLAC3D数值模拟软件，对强震区隧道软弱围岩洞口段桩-筏抗震措施效果进行研究，对比分析了无加固措施、措施一（桩-拱结构）及措施二(桩-筏-拱结构)二衬的结构位移及内力，研究结果表明：措施一和措施二的竖向位移分别减小了1.35%、1.09%；措施一的边墙收敛几无变化（增大了0.44%）；由于桩-筏-拱结构的整体稳定性较好，措施二的边墙收敛减小了30.49%；距离洞口最近的两个危险截面1和2处，措施一的最小安全系数提高了1.43%、6.71%，措施二的最小安全系数提高了145.91%、143.72%；综合位移及内力分析，措施二的抗震效果优于措施一，建议新平隧道洞口段采用桩-筏-拱结构进行抗震加固。
Abstract:In order to further improve the safety and stability of railway tunnels with weak surrounding rocks during earthquake, the Xinping tunnel at Yumo Railway was taken as an example and, to study the effect of pile-raft seismic measures at the tunnel opening in soft surrounding rocks during strong earthquake using FLAC3D numerical simulation software. The structural displacement and internal force of the two linings without reinforcement were compared, the research results show that the vertical displacement of the pile-arch structure reduced 1.35% and that of the pile-raft-arch structure reduced 1.09%; the side wall convergence of the pile-arch structure has little change (increase 0.44%); due to the better overall stability of the pile-raft-arch structure, the side wall convergence of it is reduced by 30.49%; At the two dangerous sections closest to the entrance of the tunnel, the minimum safety factor of the pile-arch structure has been increased by 1.43% and 6.71%, and the minimum safety factor of the pile-raft-arch structure has been increased by 145.91% and 143.72%; The anti-seismic effect of the pile-raft-arch structure is better than that of the pile-arch structure. It is recommended that the pile-raft-arch structure should better be adopted for seismic reinforcement at the opening section of Xinping tunnel.
-
-
表 2 材料物理力学参数
Table 2. Physical and mechanical parameters of the materials
材料属性 重度/（kN·m−3） 泊松比 弹性摸量/GPa 内摩擦角/（°） 黏聚力/MPa Ⅴ级围岩 19 0.4 2.0 24 0.2 Ⅳ级围岩 21 0.3 5.0 36 0.5 Ⅱ级围岩 25 0.2 20 51 1.5 初支 23 0.2 20 — — 二衬 24 0.2 27 — — 加固圈 23 0.35 7 — — 桩 25 0.2 28 — — 筏板 25 0.2 28 — — 
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 二衬结构的最大位移及控制效果
Table 3. Maximum displacement and control effect of second liner structure
位移 无措施/mm 措施一/mm 抗震效果/% 措施二/mm 抗震效果/% 竖向 11.84 11.68 1.35 11.71 1.09 横向 21.54 23.41 −8.69 23.62 −9.66
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 最大边墙收敛及抗震效果
Table 4. Maximum side convergence value and anti-seismic effect
工况 边墙收敛最大值/mm 抗震效果/% 无措施 49.66 — 措施一 49.88 −0.44 措施二 34.52 30.49
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 监测断面最小安全系数及抗震效果
Table 5. Monitoring section minimum safety factor and anti-seismic effect
监测断面 无措施 措施一 抗震效果/% 措施二 抗震效果/% 1 0.978 0.992 1.43 (↑) 2.405 145.91 (↑) 2 1.043 1.113 6.71 (↑) 2.542 143.72 (↑) 3 2.116 2.921 38.04 (↑) 2.637 24.62 (↑) 4 2.194 4.64 111.49 (↑) 5.165 135.41 (↑)
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 何乐平, 罗舒月, 胡启军, 等. 基于理想点-可拓云模型的隧道围岩稳定性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(2):126 − 134. [HE Leping, LUO Shuyue, HU Qijun, et al. Stability evaluation of tunnel surrounding rock based on ideal point-extension cloud model[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(2):126 − 134. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2] 崔光耀, 宋博涵, 肖剑, 等. 隧道洞口浅埋偏压段两种围岩注浆措施的抗震效果分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2020,31(5):98 − 104. [CUI Guangyao, SONG Bohan, XIAO Jian, et al. Anti-seismic effect analysis of two kinds of surrounding rock grouting measures in the shallow and eccentric pressure section of tunnel portal[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2020,31(5):98 − 104. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3] 皇民, 苑俊杰, 赵玉如, 等. 高烈度区双洞隧道洞口段地震响应分析与振动台模型试验[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2020,31(1):113 − 119. [HUANG Min, YUAN Junjie, ZHAO Yuru, et al. Seismic response analysis and shaking table test realization of double tunnel entrance in high intensity zone[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2020,31(1):113 − 119. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4] 申玉生, 高波, 王英学. 强震区山岭隧道洞口段结构动力特性分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2009,28(增刊1):3131 − 3136. [SHEN Yusheng, GAO Bo, WANG Yingxue. Structural dynamic properties analysis for portal part of mountain tunnel in strong earthquake area[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2009,28(Sup1):3131 − 3136. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5] WANG Z Z, JIANG Y J, ZHU C A. Seismic energy response and damage evolution of tunnel lining structures[J]. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering,2019,23(6):758 − 770. doi: 10.1080/19648189.2017.1304283
[6] 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 Zejun, CHEN Tielin, CUI Guangyao, 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 with English abstract)
[7] 侯森, 陶连金, 李书龙, 等. 山岭隧道洞口段设置减震层的振动台模型试验研究[J]. 世界地震工程,2014,30(3):187 − 195. [HOU Sen, TAO Lianjin, LI Shulong, et al. Shaking table test for dynamic response in portal section of mountain tunnel with shock absorption layer[J]. World Earthquake Engineering,2014,30(3):187 − 195. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8] 耿萍, 曹东杰, 唐金良, 等. 铁路隧道洞口合理抗震设防长度[J]. 西南交通大学学报,2012,47(6):942 − 948. [GENG Ping, CAO Dongjie, TANG Jinliang, et al. Rational seismic protective length for portal of railway tunnel[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University,2012,47(6):942 − 948. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2012.06.006
[9] 崔光耀, 王李斌, 王明年, 等. 强震区隧道软岩洞口段刚柔并济抗减震措施模型试验研究[J]. 振动工程学报,2019,32(1):29 − 36. [CUI Guangyao, WANG Libin, WANG Mingnian, et al. Model test study of rigid-flexible combined anti-seismic measures of soft rock tunnel portal part in meizoseismal area[J]. Journal of Vibration Engineering,2019,32(1):29 − 36. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10] 崔光耀, 麻建飞, 肖剑. 地震高烈度区隧道软硬围岩交接段减震层减震效果分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2020,31(4):113 − 120. [CUI Guangyao, MA Jianfei, XIAO Jian. Effectiveness of damping control technology of shock-absorbing layer of soft and hard surrounding rock junctions of tunnels in high-intensity earthquake zone[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2020,31(4):113 − 120. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11] 曹小平. 强震作用下山岭隧道洞口段地震响应分析及减震措施研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2013,32(10):2160. [CAO Xiaoping. Research on dynamic response at portal section of mountain tunnel under intense earthquake and shock absorption measure[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2013,32(10):2160. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12] 张乾翼, 赖国泉. 某高速公路隧道洞口错落体变形原因与治理措施分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2020,31(1):25 − 29. [ZHANG Qianyi, LAI Guoquan. Analysis of deformation and controlling measures of a cut slope at a highway tunnel portal with faulted rock mass[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2020,31(1):25 − 29. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13] 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 Guangyao, WANG Mingnian, LIN Guojin, 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 with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6582.2011.06.002
[14] 国家铁路局. 铁路隧道设计规范: TB 10003—2016[S]. 北京: 中国铁道出版社, 2017.
National Railwary Administration of the People's Republic of China, Code for design of railway tunnel: TB 10003—2016[S]. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House, 2017. (in Chinese)
-
图(11)
表(5)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1554
- PDF下载数: 21
- 施引文献: 0