Stability analysis of deep tunnel faces under pipe shed support

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.08.0974

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the stability of tunnel faces under pipe shed support in deep environments characterized by high stress and high-water pressure, a failure model for the deep tunnel face was established by the variational method. High water pressure and surrounding rock stress were incorporated into the mechanical model, and the external power and internal energy dissipation rates were calculated using the upper limit theorem. The analytical solution for the potential fracture surface of the tunnel faces was derived based on the principle of virtual work. The safety factor of the deep tunnel was solved by Matlab software. The influence of diverse parameters on the failure surface curve was analyzed, and the variation characterstics of safety factor under high stress and high-water pressure environment were discussed. Additionally, the effect of pipe shed support was evaluated. The results indicate that when the surrounding rock strength is low, the failure zone is larger and the longitudinal depth is greater. The high-water pressure and the surrounding rock stress have remarkable influence on the stability of tunnel face. Without considering them, the safety of tunnel face will be overestimated, and the relative error of safety factor can reach more than 60%. Pipe shed support can enhance the stability of deep tunnel face, increasing the safety factor by 79%. Meanwhile, high stress and high-water pressure environment will significantly reduce the effectiveness of pipe shed support. These findings provide theoretical guidance for the support design of deep tunnel, high-stress, and high-water pressure environments.

Key words: pipe shed support, deep tunnel faces, stability, high water pressure, surrounding rock stress, safety factor

CLC Number:

ZHANG Jiahua, YANG Xiaoli, YANG Yongxiang, LU Yi, ZHANG Daobing. Stability analysis of deep tunnel faces under pipe shed support[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(8): 129-138.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.4

Table 3

Table 4

References 21

[1]	江新, 王婧雯, 王耀威, 等. 突变视角下地下深部隧洞塌方风险耦合演化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 103-111. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1494
	JIANG Xin, WANG Jingwen, WANG Yaowei, et al. Study on coupling evolution of collapse risk of deep underground tunnel from perspective of catastrophe[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 103-111. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1494
[2]	何满潮, 任树林, 陶志刚. 深部隧道灾变防控方法[J]. 工程地质学报, 2022, 30(6): 1777-1797.
	HE Manchao, REN Shulin, TAO Zhigang. Disaster prevention and control methods for deep buried tunnels[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2022, 30(6): 1777-1797.
[3]	李奥, 张顶立, 黄俊, 等. 软弱破碎围岩深部隧道拱顶渐进性塌方机理及控制[J]. 工程科学与技术, 2022, 54(6): 85-96.
	LI Ao, ZHANG Dingli, HUANG Jun, et al. Progressive collapse mechanism and safety control of deep buried tunnel vault in soft and broken surrounding rock[J]. Advanced Engineering Sciences, 2022, 54(6): 85-96.
[4]	ZHANG Yu, TAO Lianjin, ZHAO Xu, et al. An analytical model for face stability of shield tunnel in dry cohesionless soils with different buried depth[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2022, 142: DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104565.
[5]	ZHANG Mengxi, DAI Zhiheng, ZHANG Xiaoqing, et al. Active failure characteristics and earth pressure distribution around deep buried shield tunnel in dry sand stratum[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2022, 124: DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2022.104479.
[6]	邱居涛, 申玉生, 赵何霖, 等. 城市深部黏土隧道变形破坏机制试验研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2023, 42(11): 2765-2775.
	QIU Jutao, SHEN Yusheng, ZHAO Helin, et al. Experimental research on deformation and failure mechanism of deep-buried clay tunnels in urban areas[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2023, 42(11): 2765-2775.
[7]	胡昌文, 韦彬, 戴智颖, 等. 深部隧道拱部围岩潜在塌落破坏上限有限元分析[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2021, 18(8): 2121-2128.
	HU Changwen, WEI Bin, DAI Zhiying, et al. Upper bound finite element limit analysis of potential collapse failure on surrounding rock of arch in deep buried tunnel[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2021, 18(8): 2121-2128.
[8]	ZHENG Keyue, SHI Chenghua, ZHAO Qianjin, et al. Supporting design method for deep-buried soft rock tunnel under asymmetric high geostress environment[J]. Journal of Central South University, 2024, 31(7): 2431-2445.
[9]	源小梦, 张佳华. 深部岩溶隧道掌子面突水灾害可靠性上限分析[J]. 防灾减灾工程学报, 2024, 44(2): 301-312.
	YUAN Xiaomeng, ZHANG Jiahua. Reliability of water inrush disaster in deep karst tunnel faces based on upper bound analysis theorem[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 2024, 44(2): 301-312.
[10]	CHENG Xuansheng, ZHANG Shanglong, ZHOU Xinhai, et al. Parameter analysis of excavation face stability of shield tunnel under high water pressure seepage[J]. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 2022, 128: DOI: 10.1016/j.pce.2022.103218.
[11]	金大龙, 袁大军, 郑浩田, 等. 高水压条件下泥水盾构开挖面稳定离心模型试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2019, 41(9): 1653-1660.
	JIN Dalong, YUAN Dajun, ZHENG Haotian, et al. Centrifugal model tests on face stability of slurry shield tunnels under high water pressures[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2019, 41(9): 1653-1660.
[12]	黄俊, 党发宁, 周磊, 等. 利用变分法探索地震作用隧道掌子面破坏形式[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2015, 37(10): 1844-1855.
	HUANG Jun, DANG Faning, ZHOU Lei, et al. Exploration of face failure curve under earthquakes using calculus of variations[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2015, 37(10): 1844-1855.
[13]	康红普, 伊丙鼎, 高富强, 等. 中国煤矿井下地应力数据库及地应力分布规律[J]. 煤炭学报, 2019, 44(1): 23-33.
	KANG Hongpu, YI Bingding, GAO Fuqiang, et al. Database and characteristics of underground in-situ stress distribution in Chinese coal mines[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2019, 44(1): 23-33.
[14]	张道兵, 朱元嫘, 尹华东, 等. 孔隙水作用下深部硐室稳定性分析及破坏机制[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(10): 62-70. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.1568
	ZHANG Daobing, ZHU Yuanlei, YIN Huadong, et al. Stability analysis and failure mechanism of deep-buried chamber under pore water[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 62-70. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.1568
[15]	袁大军, 吴俊, 沈翔, 等. 超高水压越江海长大盾构隧道工程安全[J]. 中国公路学报, 2020, 33(12): 26-45. doi: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2020.12.003
	YUAN Dajun, WU Jun, SHEN Xiang, et al. Engineering safety of cross-river or cross-sea long-distance large-diameter shield tunneling under superhigh water pressure[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2020, 33(12): 26-45. doi: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2020.12.003
[16]	HOEK E, BROWN E T. Practical estimates of rock mass strength[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 1997, 34(8): 1165-1186.
[17]	陈峥, 何平, 颜杜民, 等. 超前支护下隧道掌子面稳定性极限上限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2154-2162.
	CHEN Zheng, HE Ping, YAN Dumin, et al. Upper-bound limit analysis of tunnel face stability under advanced support[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2019, 40(6): 2154-2162.
[18]	CHEN W F. Limit analysis and soil plasticity[M]. Florida: J Ross Publishing, Inc, 2007: 20-24.
[19]	李永鑫. 考虑岩土体强度非线性的边坡稳定性上限法研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2019.
	LI Yongxin. Upper bound analysis of slope stability considering the nonlinear strength behavior of rock and soil[D]. Changsha: Central South University, 2019.
[20]	JTG33701—2018,公路隧道设计规范[S].
	JTG33701-2018,Specifications for design of highway tunnels[S].
[21]	GB50017—2017,钢结构设计标准[S].
	GB50017-2017,Standard for design of steel structures[S].

F_s		p/MPa
F_s		0	0.2	0.4	0.6	0.8	1.0
q/MPa	0.5	1.810	1.290	1.010	0.823	0.697	0.604
	1.0	0.906	0.755	0.647	0.566	0.503	0.453
	1.5	0.604	0.533	0.477	0.431	0.394	0.362
	2.0	0.453	0.412	0.377	0.350	0.324	0.302
	2.5	0.362	0.336	0.312	0.292	0.275	0.259

管棚	直径/mm	壁厚t/ mm	抗剪强度τ/MPa
①	76	5	125
②	108	5	125
③	114	6	125
④	127	8	125

管棚	q/ MPa	p/MPa
管棚	q/ MPa	0	0.2	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.8	1.0
无	0.3	1.461	0.879	0.628	0.550	0.489	0.404	0.339
	0.6	0.733	0.551	0.440	0.413	0.367	0.314	0.275
	0.9	0.489	0.402	0.339	0.314	0.294	0.259	0.232
	1.2	0.367	0.314	0.275	0.259	0.245	0.220	0.205
	1.5	0.294	0.259	0.232	0.221	0.210	0.191	0.176
①	0.3	2.610	1.571	1.121	0.982	0.873	0.715	0.605
	0.6	1.31	0.982	0.786	0.715	0.655	0.562	0.491
	0.9	0.873	0.715	0.605	0.562	0.524	0.463	0.414
	1.2	0.655	0.562	0.491	0.463	0.437	0.393	0.358
	1.5	0.524	0.463	0.414	0.393	0.375	0.342	0.315
②	0.3	4.391	2.640	1.881	1.650	1.472	1.201	1.021
	0.6	2.202	1.650	1.320	1.200	1.100	0.943	0.825
	0.9	1.471	1.206	1.020	0.943	0.884	0.777	0.695
	1.2	1.103	0.943	0.825	0.774	0.734	0.660	0.610
	1.5	0.880	0.771	0.695	0.662	0.629	0.574	0.528
③	0.3	5.021	3.020	2.160	1.890	1.680	1.370	1.160
	0.6	2.520	1.893	1.510	1.376	1.260	1.080	0.945
	0.9	1.683	1.372	1.164	1.080	1.010	0.889	0.796
	1.2	1.267	1.083	0.945	0.889	0.840	0.756	0.687
	1.5	1.016	0.889	0.796	0.756	0.721	0.657	0.605
④	0.3	6.771	4.071	2.910	2.540	2.260	1.850	1.571
	0.6	3.390	2.542	2.044	1.855	1.702	1.460	1.276
	0.9	2.267	1.852	1.570	1.463	1.360	1.217	1.075
	1.2	1.711	1.461	1.270	1.210	1.130	1.028	0.926
	1.5	1.366	1.204	1.071	1.020	0.971	0.886	0.815

管棚Φ/mm×mm	F_s	相对误差/%
无	0.723	—
76×5	1.040	43.8
108×5	1.520	110.2