4.6 Article

Experimental study on the effect of water gushing on loess metro tunnel

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 79, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-020-08995-4

关键词

Model experiment; Water gushing; Collapsible loess; Metro tunnel; Structural response; Water transport channel

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978066]
  2. National Key RAMP
  3. D Program of China [2018YFC0808706]
  4. Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Colleges of Chang'an University [300102219117]
  5. Open Fund for Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Space Engineering [YT201905]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the construction of metro tunnels, water gushing accidents caused by the rupture of underground pipeline often occur, and in loess area, the collapsibility of loess makes this problem more complex and difficult. To investigate the damage of metro tunnel caused by collapsible loess under the action of local dynamic water (gushing water), a model experiment was conducted based on the pipeline water gushing accident happened in the construction of metro tunnel located in loess area. Through the study of similar materials of loess and tunnel lining, the test materials and apparatus were prepared according to similarity criterion. By simulating water gushing environment in the loess stratum, this paper analyzed mechanical characteristics of tunnel (water pressure of surrounding rock, contact pressure and internal force of tunnel lining) and deformation of surrounding rock and tunnel. Furthermore, combining with the process of local collapse of loess in the model experiment, it is concluded that the formation of water transport channel is the main reason for the difference of tunnel structural response when water gushing occurs at different locations. Finally, a three-dimensional spatial model of water transport channel in loess stratum under the environment of local water gushing was established to study the rule of water transport.

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

4.6
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