Please wait a minute...
购物车 申请加入邮件组 English
高级检索 图表检索
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

热点文章  |  下载排行  |  浏览排行
在线投稿 免费RSS订阅
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2022, Vol. 16 Issue (6): 685-703   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0824-2
  本期目录
Structural design and mechanical responses of closely spaced super-span double tunnels in strongly weathered tuff strata
Jiaxin HE, Shaohui HE(), Xiabing LIU, Jinlei ZHENG
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
 全文: PDF(10986 KB)   HTML
Abstract：

This paper presents a study of closely spaced double tunnels in Taizhou, China. One is Xiabei Mountain No. 2 four-line super-span high-speed railway tunnel (HRT), and the other is Xiabei Mountain double-line large-span subway tunnel (ST). The excavation spans of HRT and ST are 26.3 and 14 m, respectively. The two tunnels are located at different levels, and their separating distance is 17.2 m. Due to the short construction period, the HRT excavation was completed earlier than ST. The structural design of the HRT, taking account of the disturbance by the ST construction, was analyzed by a numerical simulation. It was found that the “yielding principle” design was more feasible than the “resistance principle” design when considering the safety and durability of the HRT secondary lining. The mechanical responses of the HRT during ST construction were comprehensively monitored and analyzed, including the vault settlement, horizontal convergence, surrounding rock pressure, and the internal stress in shotcrete and steel arch. Results show that the longitudinal influence range of the ST construction on the HRT was approximately 0.6–1.1 times the ST outer diameter; the disturbance was mainly generated in the ST upper bench excavation; and the final axial force of the HRT shotcrete was approximately 9–16 times that of the steel arch, which indicated that the shotcrete was the main bearing structure. The safety status of the HRT was assessed based on the monitoring data, and the minimum safety factors of the HRT shotcrete and steel arch were 1.61 and 1.89, respectively. Parametric studies were performed to show how the lining stress of HRT was affected by the relative angle, pillar width, ST excavation method and excavation footage. Finally, the design and construction optimization were proposed according to the monitoring data and parameter analysis results. This study might provide practical reference for similar projects.
Key words： double tunnels    super-span    structural design    mechanical response    numerical simulation    field monitoring
收稿日期: 2021-09-26      出版日期: 2022-10-20
Corresponding Author(s): Shaohui HE   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2022, 16(6): 685-703.
Jiaxin HE, Shaohui HE, Xiabing LIU, Jinlei ZHENG. Structural design and mechanical responses of closely spaced super-span double tunnels in strongly weathered tuff strata. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 685-703.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-022-0824-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2022/V16/I6/685
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
type Class I (very good) Class II (good) Class III (fair) Class IV (poor) Class V (very poor)
BQ system > 550 451–550 351–450 251–350 < 250
Q system > 40 10–40 4–10 1–4 < 1
Tab.1  
Fig.4  
supports structures parameters installation area
auxiliary methods (HRT) pipe roof φ159 mm steel pipes; L = 60 m tunnel portal
footing-reinforcement pipes φ50 mm seamless steel pipes; L = 6 m; t = 4 mm tunnel arch and side wall
primary support (HRT) shotcrete thickness: 50 cmtype: steel fiber reinforced shotcrete, C30 whole section
steel arch I20b; longitudinal spacing: 0.8 m whole section
systematic bolts φ32 mm hollow grouted bolts; L = 6 mlongitudinal and circumferential spacing: 1.0 m × 0.75 m side wall and arch
temporary support (HRT) shotcrete thickness: 25 cmtype: steel fiber reinforced shotcrete, C30 whole section
steel arch I20b; longitudinal spacing: 0.8 m whole section
secondary lining (HRT) cast-in-place concrete thickness: 70 cm; type: C40 whole section
reinforcement φ25 mm main reinforcementslongitudinal and circumferential spacing: 0.2 m × 0.2 m whole section
primary support (ST) shotcrete thickness: 30 cm; type: C30 whole section
steel arch I18; longitudinal spacing: 0.6 m whole section
systematic bolts φ22 mm hollow grouting boltsspacing in the side wall: 1.5 m × 1.5 mspacing in the arch: 1.2 m × 1.0 m side wall and arch
Tab.2  
Fig.5  
strata and lining thickness (m) gravity density (kN·m–3) elastic modulus (GPa) Poisson’s ratio cohesion (kPa) internal friction angle (°)
silty clay 2 19.5 0.07 0.36 31 28.5
tuff strata (Class-V) 80–128 22 0.35 0.33 254 9.1
primary support (HRT) 0.5 25 26.6 0.2 – –
temporary support (HRT) 0.25 25 28.2 0.2 – –
secondary lining (HRT) 0.7 25 34.9 0.2 – –
primary support (ST) 0.3 25 27.0 0.2 – –
Tab.3  
bolts position area (m2) elastic modulus (GPa) grout-stiffness (kN·m–2) grout-cohesion (MPa) grout-friction (° ) grout-perimeter (m) yield-tension (kN)
anchor head 3.52 × 10–4 200 1.12 × 106 17.5 50 0.314 140
anchorage section 3.52 × 10–4 200 1.12 × 104 0.175 30 0.314 140
Tab.4  
type area (m2) gravity density (kN·m−3) elastic modulus (GPa) inertia moment-z (m4) inertia moment-x (m4) Poisson’s ratio
pipe roof 4.68 × 10–3 78.5 200 1.3 × 10−5 1.3 × 10−5 0.27
Tab.5  
Fig.6  
designs support types minimum safety factor (compressive strength control) minimum safety factor (tensile strength control)
values positions values positions
yielding principle primary support 1.55 left wall waist (E) 1.62 left arch shoulder (B)
secondary lining 3.84 left wall waist (E) 4.23 crown (A)
resistance principle primary support 2.03 left wall waist (E) 2.34 middle invert (H)
secondary lining 2.97 left wall waist (E) 1.53 left invert (G)
Tab.6  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Fig.10  
Fig.11  
type settlement (mm) convergence (mm)
left wall waist (E) left arch waist (C) vault (A) right arch waist (M) right wall waist (K) wall waist
initial (t = t0) −6.3 −22.6 −38.3 −24.5 −6.8 −10.3
final (t = t3) −25.7 −44.9 −56.0 −32.8 −12.1 −22.2
variation between t0 and t3 −19.4 −22.3 −17.7 −8.3 −5.3 −11.9
Tab.7  
Fig.12  
Fig.13  
Fig.14  
Fig.15  
time minimum safety factor (compressive strength control) minimum safety factor (tensile strength control)
value position value position
initial (t = t0) 1.95 right wall waist (K) 3.25 middle invert (H)
final (t = t3) 1.67 left wall waist (E) 1.61 left invert (G)
Tab.8  
Fig.16  
Fig.17  
position shotcrete (×103 kN) steel arch (×103 kN) shotcrete/steel arch
A 2.60 0.212 12.3
B 2.72 0.223 12.2
C 2.80 0.210 13.3
D 4.14 0.275 15.0
E 5.28 0.430 12.3
F 4.00 0.380 10.5
G 0.97 0.105 9.2
H 0.04 – –
I 1.07 – –
J 2.49 0.155 16.1
K 4.92 0.393 12.5
L 2.80 0.224 12.5
M 3.28 0.370 8.9
N – 0.156 –
Tab.9  
Fig.18  
Fig.19  
Fig.20  
Fig.21  
1 R Li, D L Zhang, Q Fang, D P Liu, J W Luo, H C Fang. Mechanical responses of closely spaced large span triple tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 105 : 103574
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103574
2 J W Luo, D L Zhang, Q Fang, D P Liu, T Xu. Mechanical responses of surrounding rock mass and tunnel linings in large-span triple-arch tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 113 : 103971
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.103971
3 L Wu, X D Zhang, Z H Zhang, W C Sun. 3D discrete element method modelling of tunnel construction impact on an adjacent tunnel. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2020, 24( 2): 657– 669
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-2054-2
4 N A Do, D Dias, P Oreste, I Djeran Maigre. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of a mechanized twin tunnels in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2014, 42 : 40– 51
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.02.001
5 H L Tu, H Zhou, C S Qiao, Y Gao. Excavation and kinematic analysis of a shallow large-span tunnel in an up-soft/low-hard rock stratum. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 97 : 103245
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103245
6 F Hage Chehade, I Shahrour. Numerical analysis of the interaction between twin-tunnels: Influence of the relative position and construction procedure. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2008, 23 : 210– 214
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.03.004
7 S L Chen, S C Lee, M W Gui. Effects of rock pillar width on the excavation behavior of parallel tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2009, 24 : 148– 154
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.05.006
8 R Das, P K Singh, A Kainthola, S Panthee, T N Singh. Numerical analysis of surface subsidence in asymmetric parallel highway tunnels. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2017, 9 : 170– 179
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.11.009
9 S K Banerjee, D Chakraborty. Behavior of twin Tunnels under different physical conditions. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2018, 18( 8): 06018018
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001216
10 J P Sahoo, J Kumar. Stability of long unsupported twin circular tunnels in soils. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2013, 38 : 326– 335
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.07.005
11 C W Boon, L H Ooi. Longitudinal and transverse interactions between stacked parallel tunnels constructed using shield tunnelling in residual soil. Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 2018, 49( 2): 57– 71
12 P Li, F Wang, L Fan, H Wang, G Ma. Analytical scrutiny of loosening pressure on deep twin-tunnels in rock formations. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 83 : 373– 380
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.007
13 J Choi, S Lee. Influence of existing tunnel on mechanical behavior of new tunnel. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2010, 14( 5): 773– 783
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-010-1013-8
14 T Boonyarak, C W W Ng. Effects of construction sequence and cover depth on crossing-tunnel interaction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2015, 52( 7): 851– 867
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0235
15 M L Cooper, D N Chapman, C D F Rogers, A H C Chan. Movements in the Piccadilly Line tunnels due to the Heathrow Express construction. Geotechnique, 2002, 52( 4): 243– 257
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.4.243
16 Z Wang, W Yao, Y Cai, B Xu, Y Fu, G Wei. Analysis of ground surface settlement induced by the construction of a large-diameter shallow-buried twin-tunnel in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 83 : 520– 532
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.09.021
17 A Golshani, M G Varnusfaderani. Innovative design modification during construction of a twin tunnel using real-time field data. Transportation Geotechnics, 2019, 20 : 100254
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100254
18 Z Huang, C Zhang, H Fu, H Deng, S Ma, J Fu. Numerical study on the disturbance effect of short-distance parallel shield tunnelling undercrossing existing tunnels. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2020, 2020( 2): 1– 14
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8810658
19 D L Zhang, Q Fang, Y Hou, P Li, L N Yuen Wong. Protection of buildings against damages as a result of adjacent large-span tunneling in shallowly buried soft ground. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013, 139( 6): 903– 913
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000823
20 L Cantieni, G Anagnostou. The interaction between yielding supports and squeezing ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2009, 24 : 309– 322
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.10.001
21 J Zhou X A Yang J Cai F Yang. Distribution rules of loads on composite lining in deep-buried tunnels and mechanical solutions of loads. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2021, 40(5): 1009− 1020 (in Chinese)
22 C Y Song H L Tu C S Qiao. Analysis on combination mode and parameters of primary support of shallow-buried large-span tunnel: Case study on Xinggongjie station tunnel on No. 2 line of Dalian metro. Tunnel Construction, 2015, 35(6): 491− 499 (in Chinese)
23 P Marinos E Hoek. GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In: GeoEng 2000. Melbourne: Taylor & Francis, 2000
24 E Hoek, E T Brown. The Hoek–Brown failure criterion and GSI––2018 edition. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2019, 11 : 445– 463
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.001
25 H J Zhang W G Qiu W C Qing. Study on distribution of axial forces of systematic anchor bars in tunnel multi-partition excavation. Journal of the China Railway Society, 2013, 35(12): 90− 94 (in Chinese)
26 TB10003-2016. Code for Design on Railway Tunnel. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House Co., Ltd., 2016 (in Chinese)
27 R C Hibbeler. Statics and Mechanics of Materials. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2014
28 J Luo, D Zhang, Q Fang, A Li, Z Sun, L Cao. Analytical study on pretensioned bolt-cable combined support of large cross-section tunnel. Science China. Technological Sciences, 2020, 63( 9): 1808– 1823
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-019-1531-9
29 D Sterpi, A Cividini. A Physical and numerical investigation on the stability of shallow tunnels in strain softening media. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2004, 37( 4): 277– 298
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-003-0021-0
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed