Considering the delay effect of initial lining and revising the Winkler elastic foundation model, an analytical approach based on Pasternak elastic foundation beam theory for pipe roof reinforcement was put forward. With the example of a certain tunnel excavation, the comparison of the values of longitudinal strain of reinforcing pipe between field monitoring and analytical approach was made. The results indicate that Pasternak model, which considers a more realistic hypothesis in the elastic soil than Winkler model, gives more accurate calculation and agrees better with the result of field monitoring. The difference of calculation results between these two models is about 7%, and Pasternak model is proved to be a better way to study the reinforcement mechanism and improve design practice. The calculation results also reveal that the reinforcing pipes act as levers, which increases longitudinal load transfer to an unexcavated area, and consequently decreases deformation and increases face stability.
tunnel heading pipe roof reinforcement Pasternak elastic foundation beam field monitoring
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
IBRAHIM O. Control of surface settlements with umbrella arch method in second stage excavations of Istanbul Metro [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2008, 23(6): 674–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZHONG Fang-ping. Double-layer pipe roofing design and monitoring for Tujiangchong tunnel under-crossing an existing highway [J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2007, 44(4): 36–40. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
CHANG Shao-dong. Research on pre-brace mechanism of pipe umbrella method [D]. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University, 1999. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
ZHANG Chuan, YANG Chun-man, ZUO Yong-jiang. Study of construction parameters of horizontal pipe roof in soft ground [J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2000, 25(6): 607–609. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
PEILA D. A theoretical study of reinforcement influence on the stability of a tunnel face [J]. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1994, 12(3): 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YOO C S. Finite element analysis of tunnel face reinforced by longitudinal pipes [J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2002, 29(1): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEGUID M A, SAADA O, NUNES M A, MATTAR J. Physical modeling of tunnels in soft ground: A review [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2008, 23(2): 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KAMATA H, MASHIMO H. Centrifuge model test of tunnel face reinforcement by bolting [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2003, 18(2): 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HISATAKE M, OHNO S. Effects of pipe roof supports and the excavation method on the displacements above a tunnel face [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2008, 23(2): 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHIN J H, CHOI Y K, KWON O Y, LEE S D. Model testing for pipe-reinforced tunnel heading in a granular soil [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2008, 23(3): 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LI Xi-bing, ZHANG Wei, LI Di-yuan, WANG Qi-sheng. Influence of underground water seepage flow on surrounding rock deformation of multi-arch tunnel [J]. Journal of Central South University of Technology, 2008, 15(1): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SU Yong-hua, ZHANG Peng, ZHAO Ming-hua. Improved response surface method and its application in stability reliability degree analysis of tunnel surrounding rock [J]. Journal of Central South University of Technology, 2007, 14(6): 870–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YANG Gao-shang, AN Yong-lin, PENG Li-min, ZHANG Jin-hua. Simulation of smoke flow and longitudinal ventilation in tunnel fire [J]. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 2006, 16(3): 741–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar