2021
DOI: 10.1007/s12205-021-5953-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tunnel Bottom Cavity Laws of Heavy-Haul Railway Tunnel under Train Load and Groundwater in Weak Surrounding Rock Condition

Abstract: This work aimed to study the cavity mechanism of surrounding rock at the bottom of a tunnel under the combined action of heavy-haul train load and groundwater. The study location was the Taihangshan Mountain Tunnel in Wari Railway, which is the first tunnel in China, constructed according to the 30 tons heavy-haul railway standards. Based on the water and soil pressure data measured in previous, the surrounding rock deterioration range and depth at the bottom of the heavy-haul railway tunnel under different ax… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The reason for this phenomenon is that the damage of the lower lining of the tunnel is caused by multiple factors such as the upper soil pressure, which belongs to the normal range and can be ignored. It can be concluded from Figure 5 that lining damage mainly occurs at the arch foot under train load, which is consistent with the research conclusions of other scholars [16,17].…”
Section: Variation Regularity Of Tunnel Cumulative Damagesupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The reason for this phenomenon is that the damage of the lower lining of the tunnel is caused by multiple factors such as the upper soil pressure, which belongs to the normal range and can be ignored. It can be concluded from Figure 5 that lining damage mainly occurs at the arch foot under train load, which is consistent with the research conclusions of other scholars [16,17].…”
Section: Variation Regularity Of Tunnel Cumulative Damagesupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The reason for this phenomenon is that the damage of the lower lining of the tunnel is caused by multiple factors such as the upper soil pressure, which belongs to the normal range and can be ignored. It can be concluded from Figure 5 that lining damage mainly occurs at the arch foot under train load, which is consistent with the research conclusions of other scholars [16,17]. The variation rule of accumulated damage at each analyzed position of the tunnel is shown in Figure 6 when the buried depth of the tunnel is 15 m. The damage at position 2 also increased the fastest.…”
Section: Variation Regularity Of Tunnel Cumulative Damagesupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The influence of initial pressure, supporting force of the tunnel, and radius of the tunnel on stress and displacement around the tunnel is analyzed by the proposed solution. Taking the Muzhailin tunnel as an example, variable models for the mechanical parameters of surrounding rock are based on experimental results from the Muzhailin tunnel in Table 2 (Li Z et al, 2021). The Muzhailing tunnel is a typical soft rock tunnel under high geostress conditions and belongs to the Lanzhou-Chongqing Railway in China.…”
Section: Analysis Of Influencing Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wang et al [10] compared and analyzed the dynamic response and fatigue life of a tunnel base structure with water and without water through on-site monitoring and numerical simulation, revealing the adverse effects of water damage on the tunnel structure. Li et al [11] analyzed the degradation range and depth of the surrounding rock at the bottom of a heavy-duty railway tunnel with different axle loads and the surrounding rock conditions by combining the method of laboratory testing and discrete element simulation, and they obtained 20 cm as the maximum degradation depth of the surrounding rock. Andersen et al [12] tried to compare the response differences between the 2D model and the 3D model and concluded that the 3D model is more accurate for the absolute prediction of train-induced vibration, while the 2D model is only qualitatively feasible.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%