4.7 Article

The effect of principal stress orientation on tunnel stability

期刊

TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 279-286

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2015.05.009

关键词

Principal stress orientation; Tunnel model; Numerical simulation; Stress intensity factor

资金

  1. Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation [PLN1202]
  2. project of Science and Technology of Sichuan province [2014JY0002]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51074109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to investigate the effect of principal stress orientation on the stability of regular tunnels and cracked tunnels, experiments by using square specimens with a centralized small tunnel were conducted, and the corresponding numerical study as well as photoelastic study were implemented. Two kinds of materials, cement mortar and sandstone, were used to make tunnel models, and three types of tunnel models were studied, i.e. (1) regular tunnel models loaded by different orientation's principal stresses, (2) tunnel models with various orientation's radial cracks in the spandrel under compression, and (3) tunnel models with a fixed radial crack loaded by various orientation's principal stresses. In the numerical study, the stress intensity factors of the radial cracks were calculated, and the results agree well with the test results. For regular tunnels, when the angle theta between the major principal stress and the tunnel symmetrical axis is 45, the corresponding tunnel is the most unfavorable; for tunnels with a radial crack in the spandrel, when the angle beta between the crack and the tunnel wall is 135 degrees, the corresponding tunnel is the most unfavorable; for tunnels with a beta = 130 degrees radial crack, when theta = 0 degrees or theta = 70 degrees, the compressive strengths of the tunnel models are comparatively low, whereas when theta = 90 degrees, it is the highest. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据