浅埋盾构穿越渗透性地层时极限支护压力分析

曹利强; 张顶立; 李新宇; 李奥; 孙振宇

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20180482

浅埋盾构穿越渗透性地层时极限支护压力分析

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20180482

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划资助项目（2017YFC0805401）；国家自然科学基金重点资助项目（51738002）；中国铁路总公司科技研究开发计划资助项目（2017G007-B）

详细信息

作者简介:
曹利强（1991—），男，博士研究生，研究方向为城市地下工程开发灾变控制，E-mail：clq02010@163.com

通讯作者:
张顶立（1963—），男，教授，研究方向为隧道及地下工程等，E-mail：Zhang-dingli@263.net

中图分类号: U451
计量
- 文章访问数: 573
- HTML全文浏览量: 252
- PDF下载量: 28
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2018-06-06
- 修回日期: 2018-10-22
- 网络出版日期: 2019-03-12
- 刊出日期: 2019-06-01

Analysis of Limit Support Pressure due to Shield Tunnelling with Shallow Overburden under Seepage

摘要

摘要: 基于半承压水模型综合考虑土压盾构穿越渗透性地层时覆土层及下卧层的渗透性，推导了盾构穿越层中沿掘进方向的水头分布的解析解，将其与现有的二维渗流场的解析解结合扩展为相应的三维近似解. 同时采用数值仿真得到稳态渗流条件下浅埋渗透性地层的主、被动破坏模式，建立了相应的柱体+弧形转角体模型，将前述三维渗流场引入该模型，通过力矩平衡法得到了相应两种极限状态下开挖面支护压力的计算公式，与既有结果进行对比，此计算方法更接近数值解. 研究发现：施工对开挖面前方渗流场的扰动基本局限在3倍洞径以内，主、被动极限支护压力的值随水头差的增大均线性增加，盾构直径和水头差是影响主动极限支护压力的主要因素，拱顶埋深与盾构直径是影响被动极限支护压力的主要因素，实际施工过程中，支护压力值应尽可能接近水土分算下的土体原始地层侧压力值，并在其附近（最好在其上方）小幅度波动，波动范围应以变形控制标准为依据.
- 盾构施工 /
- 渗透性地层 /
- 渗流 /
- 极限支护压力
Abstract: Based on the semi-contained water model, comprehensively considering the permeability of the shield-crossing soil layer and the overburden layer when shield passed through the permeable soil, the analytical solution of the head distribution along the tunnelling direction within the shield-crossing soil layer was derived, combining this, the analytical solution of the two-dimensional seepage field was extended to the corresponding three-dimensional approximate solution. Meanwhile, the active and passive failure modes of shallow-buried soil under steady-state seepage were obtained using numerical method, and the corresponding cylinder-arc-corner shaped model was established, after that, the calculation formulas of the two limit support pressures at tunnel face were obtained by introducing the above-mentioned three-dimensional seepage solution, and the calculated results were compared with the existing one, the current results were closer to the numerical solution. Besides, the study found that the disturbance of the seepage field in front of the tunnel face is limited to three times the tunnel diameter, the values of active and passive limit support pressure increased linearly with the increase of the head difference. The shield diameter and head difference were two main factors affecting the active limit pressure, and the overburden thickness and the shield diameter were two major factors affecting the passive limit pressure. During tunnelling, the support pressure should be as close as possible to the in-situ transverse earth pressure using approach calculating separately for soil and water, and should be slightly fluctuated in the vicinity (preferably above it). The fluctuation range should be determined according to the deformation control standard.
- shield tunnelling /
- permeable soil /
- seepage /
- limit support pressure

HTML全文

图 1 $y = D$ 处孔隙水压力分布（单位：kPa）

Figure 1. Distribution of pore water pressure at $y = D$ （unit：kPa）

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 AB线孔压解析解与数值解对比

Figure 2. Comparison between analytical solution and numerical solution of pore water pressure on line AB

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 $MN$ 线孔压解析解与数值解对比

Figure 3. Comparison between analytical solution and numerical solution of pore water pressure on line $MN$

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 模型最大塑性剪切应变率（变形放大50倍）

Figure 4. Maximum plastic shearing strain rate of numerical model（The deformation is magnified 50 times）

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 渗流条件下三维破坏模型

Figure 5. Three-dimensional failure model under seepage

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 极限支护压力与水头差的关系

Figure 6. Relationship between limit support stress and water head difference

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 盾构位置及地层分布

Figure 7. Location of tunnel and layout of soils

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 各计算断面支护压力对比结果

Figure 8. Analysis results for support pressure in the project

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 各影响参数取值及主、被动极限支护压力敏感度因子

Table 1. Selection of parameters and its sensitivity to active and passive limit support pressures

参数	取值	参数变化范围	敏感度因子
参数	取值	参数变化范围	主动	被动
$D$	10 m	5 ～15 m	0.66	0.94
$C$	10 m	5 ～15 m	0.08	1.44
$H$	5 m	0～10 m	0.24	0.19
$\gamma$	20 kN/m ³	15～25 kN/m³	0.10	0.35
${\eta _\gamma }$	0.525	0.40～0.65	0.41	0.17
$\varphi$	30°	5°～55°	0.05	0.42
${\eta _\varphi }$	0.75	0.5～1.0	0.17	0.55
$c$	5 kPa	0 ～ 10 kPa	0.02	0.05
${\eta _c}$	0.75	0.5～ 1.0	0.15	0.06
$\Delta h$	10 m	0～20 m	0.56	0.23
$q$	25 kPa	0 ～50 kPa	0.02	0.13

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 地层力学参数

Table 2. Mechanical parameters of soil

土层编号	名称	饱和重度/（kN•m^–3）	粘聚力/kPa	内摩擦角/（°）	渗透系数/（cm•s^–1）	侧压力系数
（1）	杂填土	19.1	12.32	12.50	3.43 × 10^–6	0.65
（2）	粉质黏土	19.3	16.57	18.54	4.63 × 10^–6	0.52
（3）	粉质黏土	19.3	15.21	22.35	3.36 × 10^–6	0.55
（4）	粘质黏土	19.2	14.64	24.16	3.64 × 10^–5	0.55
（5）	粘质黏土	20.0	16.32	18.36	5.73 × 10^–4	0.53
（6）	粉质黏土	20.2	15.68	19.83	4.62 × 10^–6	0.52

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(13)

王梦恕. 中国盾构和掘进机隧道技术现状、存在的问题及发展思路[J]. 隧道建设,2014,34(3): 179-187.

WANG Mengshu. Tunneling by TNM/shield in China:state of-art,problems and proposals[J]. Tunnel Construction, 2014, 34(3): 179-187.

黄正荣,朱伟,梁精华,等. 盾构法隧道开挖面极限支护压力研究[J]. 土木工程学报,2006,39(10): 112-116. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-131X.2006.10.019

HUANG Zhengrong, ZHU Wei, LIANG Jinghua, et al. A study on the limit support pressure at excavation face of shield tunneling[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2006, 39(10): 112-116. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-131X.2006.10.019

ANAGNOSTOU G, KOVÁRI K. Face stability conditions with earth-pressure-balanced shields[J]. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 1996, 11(2): 165-173.

李鹏飞,张顶立,赵勇. 渗流作用下海底隧道开挖面围岩稳定性分析[J]. 中国公路学报,2013,26(3): 130-136. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2013.03.015

LI Pengfei, ZHANG Dingli, ZHAO Yong. Stability analysis of subsea tunnel face considering seepage[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2013, 26(3): 130-136. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2013.03.015

PERAZZELLI P, LEONE T, ANAGNOSTOU G. Tunnel face stability under seepage flow conditions[J]. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology Incorporating Trenchless Technology Research, 2014, 43: 459-469.

LEE I M, NAM S W, AHN J H. Effect of seepage forces on tunnel face stability[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2003, 40(2): 342-350.

LECA E, DORMIEUX L. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material[J]. Géotechnique, 1990, 40(4): 581-606. doi: 10.1680/geot.1990.40.4.581

王浩然,黄茂松,吕玺琳,等. 考虑渗流影响的盾构隧道开挖面稳定上限分析[J]. 岩土工程学报,2013,35(9): 1696-1704.

WANG Haoran, HUANG Maosong, LÜ Xilin, et al. Upper-bound limit analysis of stability of shield tunnel face considering seepage[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 35(9): 1696-1704.

孙振宇,张顶立,房倩,等. 浅埋小净距公路隧道围岩压力分布规律[J]. 中国公路学报,2018,31(9): 84-94. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2018.09.010

SUN Zhenyu, ZHANG Dingli, FANG Qian, et al. Distribution of surrounding rock pressure of shallow highway tunnels with small spacing[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2018, 31(9): 84-94. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2018.09.010

刘维. 饱和成层土中盾构掘进面稳定理论性研究[D]. 浙江: 浙江大学, 2013

皇甫明. 暗挖海底隧道围岩稳定性及支护结构受力特征的研究[D]. 北京: 北京交通大学, 2005

王俊杰,郝建云. 土体静止侧压力系数定义及其确定方法综述[J]. 水电能源科学,2013(7): 111-114.

WANG Junjie, HAO Jianyun. Definition of coefficient of earth pressure and methods review[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2013(7): 111-114.

台启民,张顶立,房倩,等. 软弱破碎围岩隧道超前支护确定方法[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2016,35(1): 109-118.

TAI Qiming, ZHANG Dingli, FANG Qian, et al. Determination of advance supports in tunnel construction under unfavourable rock conditions[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 35(1): 109-118.

施引文献

附加材料(0)

访问统计