某软岩硐室支护时间研究

发布时间：2018-05-19 12:42

  本文选题：软岩硐室 + 支护时间　； 参考：《水电能源科学》2017年08期

【摘要】：为揭示某软岩硐室的合理支护时间,结合调压井硐室的结构特征,建立三维有限元模型,基于幂律流变模型,研究了无支护(方案1)、及时支护(方案2)、滞后15d支护(方案3)、滞后30d支护(方案4)四种方案下施工期及完建150d内衬砌的位移、应力和围岩塑性区开展范围。结果表明,方案3衬砌的应力水平和位移较其他2种支护方案小,最大压应力约为方案2的64%、方案4的70%;最大位移约为方案2的2倍、方案4的1.5倍;支护越及时,围岩的塑性区开展范围就越小,但方案3围岩最大塑性区范围为8.5m,与方案2的围岩塑性区相差较小,且塑性区发育深度小于围岩锚固深度,从充分发挥围压自承能力和支护结构的安全性角度综合分析,建议采用方案3。研究结果为此类工程设计提供借鉴。
[Abstract]:In order to reveal the reasonable supporting time of a soft rock chamber, a three-dimensional finite element model is established based on the power law rheological model, combined with the structural characteristics of the chamber in a pressure regulating well. This paper studies the displacement, stress and the development range of surrounding rock plastic zone during construction period and 150 days after construction under the four schemes of no support (scheme 1), timely support (scheme 2), delayed support (scheme 3), delayed support (3 d) and delayed 30 d support (scheme 4). The results show that the stress level and displacement of the lining in scheme 3 are smaller than those of the other two support schemes, and the maximum compressive stress is about 64 of scheme 2 and 705 of scheme 4; the maximum displacement is about 2 times of scheme 2 and 1.5 times of that of scheme 4; the more timely the support is, The range of plastic zone of surrounding rock is smaller, but the range of maximum plastic zone of project 3 is 8.5 m, which is smaller than that of scheme 2, and the development depth of plastic zone is smaller than that of surrounding rock Anchorage. From the angle of giving full play to the self bearing capacity of confining pressure and the safety of supporting structure, it is suggested to adopt the scheme 3. The research results provide reference for this kind of engineering design.
【作者单位】： 四川大学水力学与山区河流开发保护国家重点实验室;四川大学水利水电学院;
【基金】：国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)(2015CB057903) 国家自然科学基金项目(51079092)
【分类号】：TV223
，

本文编号：1910141