XIANG An-tian, ZHU He-hua, DING Wen-qi, et al., 2007. MECHANIC RESPONSE OF A SHALLOW-EMBEDDED AND DOUBLE-ARCH TUNNEL UNDER PARTIAL PRESSURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. Journal of Geomechanics, 13 (3): 247-254.
Citation: ZHANG Baolong, FAN Wen, 2018. APPLICATION OF INSULATION BOARD IN ROAD ENGINEERING IN PERMAFROST REGIONS OF INNER MONGOLIA. Journal of Geomechanics, 24 (5): 706-713. DOI: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2018.24.05.072

APPLICATION OF INSULATION BOARD IN ROAD ENGINEERING IN PERMAFROST REGIONS OF INNER MONGOLIA

doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2018.24.05.072
More Information
  • Based on the meteorological engineering geological data, observation data and design data along the Bo-Ya expressway, a numerical calculation model of the roadbed temperature field was constructed by means of finite element software, and the influence of XPS insulation board on temperature field under different subgrade filling height was studied emphatically. The results show that, the increase of the subgrade height and the application of XPS insulation board both play a positive role in protecting permafrost. With the same embankment filling height, the temperature of permafrost of the subgrade with XPS insulation board reduces by about 0.19℃ than that of the subgrade with crushed rocks when the road runs to its twentieth years. XPS insulation board makes the upper limit of permafrost obviously raised, and the average uplift of the upper limit of permafrost is about 1.23 m under the same subgrade height. The upper limit of permafrost of subgrade with XPS insulation board is located in the replaced crushed rocks during the specified years of the designing code. However; the application of XPS insulation board aggravates the development of sunny-shady slope effect, the subgrade height with crushed rock should be kept above 3 m, and the subgrade height with XPS insulation board should be kept no more than 2 m.

     

  • Full-text Translaiton by iFLYTEK

    The full translation of the current issue may be delayed. If you encounter a 404 page, please try again later.
  • 隧道是在山岭地区修建高速公路常见的一种地下建筑物, 连拱和分离式隧道是目前高速公路隧道的两种形式。连拱隧道由于具有线形顺畅、使用占地面积小等特点, 而在城市道路用地受限、山区地形复杂、道路辗线困难等情况下获得了广泛的应用。从力学上讲, 连拱隧道施工是不可逆的非线性演化过程, 他的最终状态不是唯一的, 而是与应力路径或应力历史有关。其在施工过程中的受力演化机制非常复杂, 施工过程中围岩的稳定性、初衬和二衬的受力情况、中墙的受力特征和稳定性等已成为工程技术人员关注的焦点。有限元法在模拟隧道的分步开挖和适时支护方面具有独特的优点, 随着计算机技术的不断进步, 得到了越来越广泛的采用。当前, 有关单洞隧道施工力学行为的三维有限元分析的文献并不鲜见[1~3], 研究结果对隧道的设计和施工起了很积极的作用。对双连拱隧道的研究也已深入, 文献[4~6]用二维有限元对连拱隧道的力学行为进行了较为全面的研究, 文献[7~10]则采用三维数值模拟的方法进行研究, 但成果往往集中于某一方面, 如地表沉降、中墙受力状态的演变、塑性区的发展等, 如文献[11]那样用三维有限元对双连拱隧道浅埋偏压洞身段的施工力学响应行为进行系统研究和全面分析的文献尚不多见。

    本文所做的工作是:在考虑洞身浅埋偏压与洞口仰坡耦合作用的条件下, 采用功能强大的MARC有限元软件, 对某高速公路浅埋偏压连拱隧道出口段施工全过程进行三维数值模拟, 得出塑性区分布和发展、拱顶下沉、正应力与剪应力的集中和转移、中隔墙竖向应力随施工过程的变化规律, 研究结果对同类隧道的设计和施工具有参考和借鉴意义。

    隧道全长215米, 采用曲中墙连体隧道结构形式, 纵坡为2. 499 %。隧道区处于区域上塔前-赋春逆冲推覆构造带之塔前~赋春主断裂构造下盘, 主断裂距隧道洞身不足百米。受区域地质构造环境的影响, 隧道区裂隙发育, 岩体破碎。洞口均由千枚状砂质板岩强风化带组成, 岩土结构以蠕动状松散结构为主, 碎块状松散结构次之, 稳定性较差。

    X方向左右边界取至自然山脊和山谷线, 至隧道左右边墙距离约为5倍的单洞跨度, 两边施加X向的水平位移约束。在Y方向自由上边界取至地面, 下边界取至距开挖洞底4倍洞高处并施加竖向位移约束。在Z方向选取长度40m, 整个Z=40m平面取Z向水平位移约束。考虑实际施工情况, 对Z=0平面(洞口)而言, 坡体前缘线5m以下和洞周5m开外的交集部分取Z向水平位移约束。见图 1

    图  1  三维有限元模型网格图
    Figure  1.  3D FEM mesh of the model

    二衬、初衬和岩石都采用8节点三维实体等参单元, 共35700个; 锚杆用三维杆单元(图 2), 共3120个; 锚杆单元节点与实体单元节点完全重合, 总节点36393个。

    图  2  锚杆和初衬单元剖分图
    Figure  2.  Anchors and first lining in the model

    假设锚杆是线弹性材料, 隧洞围岩和混凝土是弹塑性材料, 采用Drucker—Plager屈服准则。初始荷载均为岩土体的自重荷载。

    另外, 隧洞锚杆是按梅花形布置, 径向间距0. 8米, 但是建模时为减少单元数量, 单元的尺寸大于实际的锚杆分布间距, 所以锚杆截面积为折算面积。围岩及其它材料的参数如表 1所示。

    表  1  模型材料力学参数一览表
    Table  1.  Mechanical parameters of model materials
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    工况的模拟应尽可能与实际施工过程一致。但由于实际过程比较复杂, 而且某些施工过程可能同时进行, 因此只能依照实际的施工进度, 对施工步骤进行简化, 以尽量减少数值模拟计算的工作量, 同时又能够反映施工过程中所关心的问题。由于实际施工中一次性开挖长度经常可达30m, 考虑到最危险情况, 将所选取段按通槽开挖进行模拟。开挖采取“杀死”单元, 初期支护和二衬施做采取改变单元属性来“激活”[12]

    采用中导坑台阶法施工, 施工工序为:Lcase 0, 自重作用下初始状态的模拟; Lcase1, 开挖中导洞; Lcase2, 中导洞支护; Lcase3, 浇注中墙; Lcase4, 右洞上台阶开挖; Lcase5, 右洞上台阶初期支护; Lcase6, 开挖左洞上台阶; Lcase7, 左洞上台阶初期支护; Lcase8, 右洞下台阶开挖; Lcase9, 右洞下台阶初期支护; Lcase10, 浇筑右洞二衬及仰拱; Lcase11, 左洞下台阶开挖; Lcase12, 左洞下台阶初期支护; Lcase13, 浇筑左洞二衬及仰拱。右洞靠山谷一侧, 浅埋; 左洞靠山脊, 相对深埋。相对位置可参见图 1

    图 3图 4中:坐标0处为洞口边界, 埋深8m;坐标40处为洞内边界, 埋深40m。位移系MARC输出后, 用Excel消掉自重作用下的初始位移(Lcase 0)后生成。图 5图 6中: Lcase 0的拱顶下沉为自重作用下的初始值, 与施工影响无关。左右洞拱顶节点等间距(8m)分布, 两洞节点号由洞口至洞内依次增大, 左洞为92 —4395, 右洞为40 —3019。拱顶下沉小结:

    图  3  左洞拱顶下沉与进洞距离关系曲线图
    Figure  3.  Curves of vault displacement vs.distance for the left tunnel
    图  4  右洞拱顶下沉与进洞距离关系曲线图
    Figure  4.  Curves of vault displacement vs.distance for the right tunnel
    图  5  左洞拱顶下沉与工况步关系曲线图
    Figure  5.  Curves of vault displacement vs.loadcases at different vault points for the left tunnel
    图  6  右洞拱顶下沉与工况步关系曲线图
    Figure  6.  Curves of vault displacement vs.loadcases at different vault poins for the right tunnel

    1.从拱顶下沉与工况步关系曲线图(图 5图 6)看, 隧道位移释放主要发生在隧道中导洞开挖(Lcase1), 左、右洞各自上台阶(左洞Lcase6、右洞Lcase4)开挖之时, 其他施工步对拱顶下沉影响不大。

    2.埋深相对较大的山脊侧左洞拱顶下沉比山谷侧右洞拱顶下沉大, 前者最大4. 72cm, 后者最大3. 81cm, 均发生在进洞40m处(图 3图 4)。各工况步拱顶下沉由洞口至洞内有逐渐增大的趋势, 这很可能是由于埋深不断增大引起的。在浅埋条件下, 拱顶下沉有随埋深增大而增大的趋势, 洞内稳定不容忽视。

    3.实测拱顶下沉位移一般2~3cm, 计算值相对偏大, 但这正好反应了计算模型和参数选取的合理性。开挖是引起拱顶下沉的主要因素, 而监测工作往往是滞后于开挖的, 开挖初期释放掉的部分位移, 未能在监测数据里反映出来。

    a剪应力(图 7):

    图  7  Lcase2-Lcase7-Lcase10-Lcase13剪应力集中云图(进洞20m)
    Figure  7.  Shear stress distribution around the tunnel during construction

    剪应力集中小结:

    1.中导洞支护(Lcase2)的剪应力集中在墙底和拱腰上角点; 在左右洞上台阶开挖完毕后(Lcase7), 中墙的倒梯形墙基剪应力也非常集中; 中墙墙底的剪应力集中区随着左右洞二衬和仰拱的施作而减弱, 而墙顶的则增强。

    2.施工完毕, 仰拱成了剪应力集中的区域, 比二衬的拱墙和边墙发育, 说明仰拱在支护中发挥了很重要的作用, 应及时施作。

    b正应力(图 8):

    图  8  Lcase1-Lcase7-Lcase11 -Lcase13正应力集中云图(进洞20m)
    Figure  8.  Normal stress distribution around the tunnel during construction

    正应力集中小结:

    1.按MARC规定, 应力“拉正压负”。中导洞开挖完毕(Lcase1)隧道顶部即出现拉应力区, 由于岩土体抗拉能力弱, 因此, 顶部是易发生塌方的部位, 应超前或及时支护。

    2.左右洞上台阶开挖初支后(Lcase7)洞顶仍然出现明显的拉应力区, 山脊侧洞顶的拉应力区仍然较大。说明山脊侧更容易坍方, 初支还不能保证隧道的稳定, 应及时施作二衬。

    3.随着左洞下台阶的开挖, 隧道两侧边墙都出现了明显的压应力区, 这显然是由于隧道的偏压推挤作用引起的。

    4.随着二衬及仰拱的及时完成, 隧道周边应力转移, 压应力集中区基本消失, 二衬及仰拱成为正应力集中区。

    塑性区小结(图 9):

    图  9  Lcase2-Lcase7- Lcase11- Lcase13塑性区分布云图(进洞20m)
    Figure  9.  Plastic zone distribution around the tunnel during construction

    1.中导洞开挖初期支护后(Lcase2)两侧和墙脚皆有塑性区发育, 说明中导洞虽然截面小, 但其稳定性仍是一个不可忽视的问题。

    2.左右洞上台阶开挖后(Lcase7), 中导洞的支护仍未拆除, 所以其下部仍然出现较大塑性区, 这是由于中导洞支护拱向两侧传递推力的缘故。说明:该阶段不拆除中导洞支护, 可以发挥其支护作用, 有利于中隔墙稳定。

    3.施工支护完毕阶段(Lcase11、Lcase13)山脊侧中墙墙踵和隧道边墙塑性区比山谷侧发育, 说明施工完毕后山脊侧所受压力比山谷侧大, 失稳最易在山脊侧发生。

    图  10  Lcase3-Lcase7-Lcase8-Lcase10-Lcase11-Lcase13中墙σy分布云图(进洞20m)
    Figure  10.  σy distribution of the mid-leading wall during construction
    图  11  中墙横断面(距洞口20m)上部两侧节点σy 随工况步变化曲线图
    Figure  11.  Curves of σy vs.loadcases for the top mid-leading wall nodes on two sides
    图  12  中墙横断面(距洞口20m)下部两侧节点σy随工况步变化曲线图
    Figure  12.  Curves of σy vs.loadcases for the bottom mid-leading wall nodes on two sides

    说明:图 11图 12中应力拉正压负。由于施工中采用改变单元属性来“激活”支护, Lcase 0的节点σy值实质是岩体在该点的自重应力, Lcase1和Lcase2工况步由于中导洞开挖(杀死单元), 节点σy值为0。而中墙在Lcase3才施作, 所以, 分析中墙节点应力的变化应从Lcase3开始。为避免边界条件影响, 研究对象取距洞口20m的横断面。节点15362和14816分别为该横断面上部的山脊侧节点和山谷侧节点; 节点14753和15425分别为该横断面下部山脊侧节点和山谷侧节点。

    中墙竖向应力小结:

    1.中导洞开挖施作中墙后(Lcase3)σy基本为负值, 说明中隔墙主要受压, 但山脊侧受压更明显, 说明隧道偏压。

    2.从σy分布云图看(图 10), 在开挖形态对称条件下(Lcase7、Lcase11-Lcase13), 中墙竖对称条件下(Lcase7、Lcase11-Lcase13), 中墙竖向应力处于相对对称状态。随着右洞下台阶开挖(Lcase8), 中墙山谷侧成了受压集中区, 说明开挖导致山体有向外移动的趋势, 其推挤作用使中墙受到明显的偏压作用。右洞初衬和二衬的施作(Lcase10)并没使中墙偏压应力作出很大的调整, 说明非对称开挖是引起中墙偏压的关键因素。

    3.从中墙横断面(距洞口20m)上部两侧σy随工况步变化曲线看(图 11), 山脊侧上部节点15362在山谷侧右洞上台阶开挖后(Lcase3-Lcase4)出现了明显的拉应力, 山谷侧节点14816在山脊侧左洞开挖(Lcase6-Lcase7)后, 也出现了明显拉应力, 15362节点几乎同时由受拉变成受压状态, 而此时中墙下部节点(15425、14753)仍处于受压状态。

    4.从中墙横断面(距洞口20m)下部两侧σy随工况步变化曲线看(图 12), 中墙下部山脊侧节点14753在山谷侧右洞下台阶开挖(Lcase7-Lcase8)后出现最大竖向拉应力0. 903MPa, 山谷侧节点15425受最大压应力3. 031MPa。隧道施作完成后(Lcase13)中墙两侧所受压应力相差很小, 说明中墙倾覆失稳、拉裂破坏或压致破坏最可能在非对称开挖的单侧隧道的下台阶开挖期间发生。

    通过对连拱隧道的施工进行动态模拟, 深入理解了隧道的施工力学响应行为, 归纳起来, 可得到以下一些主要结论:

    1) 实测拱顶下沉位移一般2~3cm, 计算最大值4~5cm, 相对偏大, 但这正好反应了计算模型和参数选取的合理性。开挖后、支护前的位移变化最大, 而监测工作相对滞后, 初期开挖已经释放掉部分位移, 未能在监测数据里反映出来。浅埋条件下, 拱顶下沉随埋深增大而增大, 洞内稳定不容忽视。

    2) 施工完毕, 二衬和仰拱成了应力集中区, 是主要的受力结构, 施工中应及时施作以使其发挥作用。

    3) 开挖完毕, 抗拉能力弱的隧道顶部岩土体出现拉应力区, 是易发生塌方的部位, 应及时支护或采用大管棚等措施超前支护。左右洞上台阶开挖初支后洞顶仍然存在明显的拉应力区, 初支还不能保证隧道的稳定, 应及时施作二衬和仰拱。随着施工完毕, 两侧边墙附近压应力集中区转移消失, 二衬及仰拱呈现拉应力集中的状态, 隧道受力状态得到了良好改善。

    4) 中墙墙底的剪应力集中区和施工完毕后中墙墙踵出现的塑性区都说明中墙的基础稳定问题不可忽视。塑性区在左右洞上台阶开挖后最发育, 隧道在该施工段最易失稳, 施工时应作好相应的监测工作。由于偏压作用, 施工支护完毕, 中墙墙踵和隧道山脊侧边墙塑性区比山谷侧发育。可采用中墙基础锚固、在山脊侧施作偏压衬砌等方法, 来加强隧道的稳定性。

    5) 中墙竖向应力状态在施工过程中经过了复杂的调整, 在开挖形态非对称条件下, 隧道出现最不利的偏心受压(受拉)状态, 初衬和二衬的施作并未让此状态得到有效改善。而开挖形态对称施工步的中墙应力则处于相对对称状态。因此, 对称开挖是防止中墙倾覆失稳、拉裂破坏或压致破坏的最有效措施。

  • [1]
    宇德忠, 程培峰, 季成, 等.岛状多年冻土地区桥梁桩基回冻后承载力的静载与动测对比试验研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报, 2015, 34(S1):2845~2853. http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=YSLX2015S1031&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ

    YU Dezhong, CHENG Peifeng, JI Chen, et al. Static and dynamic contrast test for bearing capacity of refrozen bridge pile foundation in patchy permafrost regions[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2015, 34(S1):2845~2853. (in Chinese with English abstract) http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=YSLX2015S1031&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ
    [2]
    孙志忠, 马巍, 党海明, 等.青藏铁路多年冻土区路基变形特征及其来源[J].岩土力学, 2013, 34(9):2667~2671. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ytlx201309036

    SUN Zhizhong, MA Wei, DANG Haiming, et al. Characteristics and causes of embankment deformation for Qinghai-Tibet Railway in permafrost regions[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2013, 34(9):2267~2671. (in Chinese with English abstract) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ytlx201309036
    [3]
    黄仁达, 李丽, 吴会军, 等.夏热冬冷地区不同墙体结构的保温层厚度分析[J].硅酸盐通报, 2018, 37(6):1829~1835. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/gsytb201806004

    HUANG Renda, LI Li, WU Huijun, et al. Analysis on thermal insulation thickness of different wall structures in hot summer and cold winter zone[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2018, 37(6):1829~1835. (in Chinese with English abstract) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/gsytb201806004
    [4]
    盛煜, 张鲁新, 杨成松, 等.保温处理措施在多年冻土区道路工程中的应用[J].冰川冻土, 2002, 24(5):618~622. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0240.2002.05.025

    SHENG Yu, ZHANG Luxin, YANG Chengsong, et al. Application of thermal-insulation treatment to roadway engineering in permafrost regions[J]. Journal of Glaciolgy and Geocryology, 2002, 24(5):618~622. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0240.2002.05.025
    [5]
    Wen Z, Sheng Y, Ma W, et al. Evaluation of EPS application to embankment of Qinghai-Tibetan railway[J]. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 2005, 41(3):235~247. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2004.11.001
    [6]
    Tai B W, Liu J K, Fang J H, et al. Calculation model of permafrost table of XPS insulated board subgrade in warm permafrost regions[J]. Journal of Chang'an University (Natural Science Edition), 2017, 37(4):1~11. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xagljtdx201704001
    [7]
    董元宏, 朱东鹏, 张会建, 等.应用于冻土路基的XPS保温板力学性能[J].中国公路学报, 2015, 28(12):64~68. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2015.12.009

    DONG Yuanhong, ZHU Dongpeng, ZHANG Huijian, et al. Mechanical properties of XPS thermal insulation board applied in permafrost embankment[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2015, 28(12):64~68. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7372.2015.12.009
    [8]
    Johansen N I, Lynch D F, Sengupta M. Notes on Norwegian arctic road construction techniques[J]. Northern Engineer, 1988, 20(1):26~29.
    [9]
    Li D Q, Wu Z W, Fang J H, et al. Heat stability analysis of embankment on the degrading permafrost district in the East of the Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 1998, 28(3):183~188. doi: 10.1016/S0165-232X(98)00018-4
    [10]
    盛煜, 温智, 马巍.青藏铁路北麓河试验段路基保温材料处理措施初步分析[J].岩石力学与工程学报, 2003, 22(S2):2659~2663. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yslxygcxb2003z2025

    SHENG Yu, WEN Zhi, MA Wei. Preliminary analysis on insulation treatment of embankment at Beiluhe test section of Qinghai-Tibet railway[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2003, 22(S2):2659~2663. (in Chinese with English abstract) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yslxygcxb2003z2025
    [11]
    温智, 盛煜, 马巍, 等.保温法保护多年冻土的长期效果分析[J].冰川冻土, 2006, 28(5):760~765. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0240.2006.05.020

    WEN Zhi, SHENG Yu, MA Wei, et al. Long-term effect of insulation on permafrost on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2006, 28(5):760~765. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0240.2006.05.020
    [12]
    邰博文, 刘建坤, 房建宏, 等.高温冻土区高速公路特殊结构路基地温分布特征及降温效果分析[J].岩石力学与工程学报, 2017, 36(S1):3696~3704. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=QKC20172017062100239255

    TAI Bowen, LIU Jiankun, FANG Jianhong, et al. Analysis on distribution characteristics of ground temperature and cooling effect of special-structured subgrade of the expressway in warm permafrost region[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 36(S1):3696~3704. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=QKC20172017062100239255
    [13]
    Liu J K, Tian Y H. Numerical studies for the thermal regime of a roadbed with insulation on permafrost[J]. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 2002, 35(1):1~13. doi: 10.1016/S0165-232X(02)00028-9
    [14]
    中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. JGJ118~2011冻土地区建筑地基基础设计规范[S].北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2012.

    People's Republic of China Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development. JGJ118~2011 Code for design of soil and foundation of buildings in frozen soil region[S]. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 2012. (in Chinese)
    [15]
    徐斅祖, 王家澄, 张立新.冻土物理学[M].北京:科学出版社, 2010.

    XU Xuezu, WANG Jiacheng, ZHANG Lixin. Permafrost physics[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2010. (in Chinese)
    [16]
    季国良, 时兴和, 高务祥.藏北高原地面加热场的变化及其对气候的影响[J].高原气象, 2001, 20(3):239~244. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0534.2001.03.003

    JI Guoliang, SHI Xinghe, GAO Wuxiang. The variation of surface heating field over northern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and its effect on climate[J]. Plateau Meteorology, 2001, 20(3):239~244. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0534.2001.03.003
    [17]
    李双洋, 张明义, 张淑娟, 等.列车荷载下青藏铁路冻土路基动力响应分析[J].冰川冻土, 2008, 30(5):860~867. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/bcdt200805020

    LI Shuangyang, ZHANG Mingyi, ZHANG Shujuan, et al. Analysis of the dynamic response of Qinghai-Tibetan railway embankment in permafrost regions under train load[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2008, 30(5):860~867. (in Chinese with English abstract) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/bcdt200805020
  • Relative Articles

    ZHANG Haowei, LIU Fuzhen, WANG Junchao, ZHANG Jiajia. 2022: Hazard assessment of debris flows in Kongpo Gyamda, Tibet based on FLO-2D numerical simulation. Journal of Geomechanics, 28(2): 306-318. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2021117
    ZHANG Han, GAO Yang, LI Bin, LI Jun, WU Weile. 2022: Numerical simulation analysis of the solid-liquid coupling process in a hybrid landslide: A case study of the Wushanping landslide. Journal of Geomechanics, 28(6): 1104-1114. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.20222832
    ZHAO Hailin, HUANG Bolin, ZHANG Quan, ZHENG Jiahao, FENG Wanli, CHEN Xiaoting. 2020: Physical experiment and numerical model analysis of surge caused by collapse of columnar dangerous rock mass. Journal of Geomechanics, 26(4): 500-509. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2020.26.04.043
    CHEN Zhenkun, SU Jinbao, LU Yi. 2019: APPLICATION AND TREND OF NUMERICAL SIMULATION IN DYNAMIC STUDY OF OROGENIC BELT IN CHINA. Journal of Geomechanics, 25(2): 151-165. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2019.25.02.014
    SONG Sui-hong, HOU Jia-gen, LIU Yu-min, CAO Si-fan, HU Chen-bin. 2017: A STUDY ON THE DISTRIBUTION PATTERN OF SUPRASALT FAULT BASED ON NUMERICAL SIMULATION. Journal of Geomechanics, 23(3): 429-435.
    FU Lian-zhen, HU Dao-gong, ZHANG Xu-jiao, YOU Bao-jie, WU Ze-qun, YE Meng-ni. 2015: STUDY ON PERMAFROST OF QILIAN MOUNTAINS BASED ON GIS SPATIAL ANALYSIS MODEL. Journal of Geomechanics, 21(3): 371-377.
    WU Lin-qiang, LIU Cheng-lin, LI Bing, WANG Zi-ling. 2014: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TECTONIC STRESS FIELD AND PREDICTION OF OIL-FAVORED AREAS: A CASE STUDY OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF QINGSHANKOU FORMATION IN GUIZIJING REGION OF QIAN'AN AREA, SONGLIAO BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 20(4): 339-351.
    WU Ya, DAI Jun-sheng, GU Yu-chao, SHANG Lin, LIU Qiang. 2014: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF PRESENT GEO-STRESS FIELD AND ITS EFFECT ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF FUYU RESERVOIR IN GAOTAIZI OILFIELD. Journal of Geomechanics, 20(4): 363-371.
    FU Xiao-long, DAI Jun-sheng, ZHANG Hong-guo. 2013: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF STRUCTURAL STRESS FIELD IN FUNING SEDIMENTARY PERIOD AND PREDICTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT LAW OF LOWER-ORDER FAULTS IN CHAJIAN SLOPE ZONE. Journal of Geomechanics, 19(2): 125-132.
    TAO Qian, LIU Chao, ZHU Zhi-ming, YANG Yong, ZOU Zuyin. 2012: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF LANDSLIDE MECHANISM AT ERMANSHAN IN HANYUAN UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS. Journal of Geomechanics, 18(4): 440-450.
    MA Xiu-min, PENG Hua, JIANG Jing-jie, PENG Li-guo. 2012: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF IN-SITU STRESS FIELD IN THE AREA OF DEEP-BURIED AND LONGER TUNNEL IN NORTH TANSHAN, XINJIANG. Journal of Geomechanics, 18(1): 1-10.
    SHI Wei, TIAN Mi, MA Yin-sheng, GONG Ming-quan, DU Jian-jun, LIU Yuan. 2011: A NUMERICAL SIMULATING RESEARCH ON NEOTECTONICS IN THE LOP NUR BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 17(3): 223-231.
    LI Zhi-yong, ZENG Zuo-xun, HUANG Zheng, LIU Li-lin, WEI Zhong-yuan, ZHANG Kun. 2007: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE TECTONIC STRESS FIELD AND FORECASTING OF FRACTURES BASED ON MSC MARC. Journal of Geomechanics, 13(3): 233-238, 232.
    WANG Lian-jie, WU Zhen-han, WANG Wei, SUN Dong-sheng. 2006: NUMERICAL MODELING OF THE PRESENT TECTONIC STRESS FIELD IN THE CENTRAL QINGHAI-TIBET PLATEAU. Journal of Geomechanics, 12(2): 140-149.
    ZHANG Si-feng, ZHOU jian, SONG Xiu-guang, LI Shu-cai. 2006: 3D NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE ANCHOR EFFECT OF PRESTRESSED CABLES AND ITS ENGINEERING APPLICATION. Journal of Geomechanics, 12(2): 166-173.
    ZHANG Yong-shuang, WANG Hong-cai. 2004: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE STABILITY OF HIGH SAND LOESS SLOPES. Journal of Geomechanics, 10(4): 357-365.
    ZHANG Ming-li, TAN Cheng-xuan, WANG Zhen. 2002: A STUDY ON TECTONIC STRESS FIELD NUMERICAL SIMULATION AND ITS APPLICATION IN XIHU SAG OF EAST CHINA SEA BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 8(3): 229-238.
    QIAO He, TANG Chun'an, LI Xiao, CHEN Rongde. 1999: NEW NUMERICAL SIMULATION METHOD OF ROCK FAILURE PROCESS UNDER ROCKBURST AND EXCAVATING. Journal of Geomechanics, 5(1): 62-66.
    Zeng Lianbo, Xiao Shurong, Luo Anxiang. 1998: THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF MODERN STRESS FIELD AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE OIL DEVELOPMENT OF THE JING'AN AREA IN THE CENTRAL SHAANXI-GANSU-NINGXIA BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 4(3): 58-63.
    Jiang Xirong, Zhao Yinzhen, Wang Lianjie. 1996: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF STRUCTURAL CONTROL OF GOLD DEPOSITS IN THE XIAODONGYANGHE AREA OF LIAONING PROVINCE. Journal of Geomechanics, 2(2): 83-89.
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(5)

    1. 吴黎恒. 钢筋与土工布结合增强大粒径碎石路基承载性能的机理及应用. 四川水泥. 2024(11): 249-251 .
    2. 田立慧,王师捷,陈维新,郭源灏. 青藏铁路隔热板路基温度场时程演化模拟. 黑龙江科技大学学报. 2024(06): 949-956 .
    3. 黄明奎,符贵丽. 寒区冷却路基调控水层合理厚度研究. 黑龙江大学工程学报. 2022(03): 1-8 .
    4. Aimin Sha,Biao Ma,Hainian Wang,Liqun Hu,Xuesong Mao,Xilan Zhi,Huaxin Chen,Yu Liu,Feng Ma,Zhuangzhuang Liu,Rui He,Wei Si,Xuhao Wang,Cheng Li. Highway constructions on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Challenge, research and practice. Journal of Road Engineering. 2022(01): 1-60 .
    5. 黄芝权. 多年冻土公路工程地质钻探技术探究. 工程技术研究. 2019(15): 57-58 .

    Other cited types(7)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-040510152025
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 33.6 %FULLTEXT: 33.6 %META: 65.5 %META: 65.5 %PDF: 0.9 %PDF: 0.9 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 3.9 %其他: 3.9 %上海: 0.5 %上海: 0.5 %中卫: 0.2 %中卫: 0.2 %临汾: 0.2 %临汾: 0.2 %保定: 0.5 %保定: 0.5 %兰州: 0.7 %兰州: 0.7 %北京: 3.0 %北京: 3.0 %十堰: 0.7 %十堰: 0.7 %南京: 0.2 %南京: 0.2 %台州: 1.1 %台州: 1.1 %吉林: 0.5 %吉林: 0.5 %呼和浩特: 0.2 %呼和浩特: 0.2 %哥伦布: 0.2 %哥伦布: 0.2 %大兴安岭: 0.2 %大兴安岭: 0.2 %大同: 2.1 %大同: 2.1 %大庆: 0.5 %大庆: 0.5 %天津: 0.7 %天津: 0.7 %常州: 0.2 %常州: 0.2 %广安: 0.7 %广安: 0.7 %广州: 0.2 %广州: 0.2 %张家口: 12.6 %张家口: 12.6 %扬州: 0.7 %扬州: 0.7 %杭州: 1.8 %杭州: 1.8 %松原: 0.2 %松原: 0.2 %武汉: 1.6 %武汉: 1.6 %漯河: 1.8 %漯河: 1.8 %石家庄: 0.5 %石家庄: 0.5 %芒廷维尤: 17.9 %芒廷维尤: 17.9 %萍乡: 0.5 %萍乡: 0.5 %西宁: 40.7 %西宁: 40.7 %西安: 0.5 %西安: 0.5 %西雅图: 0.2 %西雅图: 0.2 %诺沃克: 0.2 %诺沃克: 0.2 %贵阳: 0.5 %贵阳: 0.5 %运城: 0.9 %运城: 0.9 %邯郸: 0.2 %邯郸: 0.2 %郑州: 0.5 %郑州: 0.5 %鄂尔多斯: 0.2 %鄂尔多斯: 0.2 %银川: 0.5 %银川: 0.5 %长沙: 0.9 %长沙: 0.9 %青岛: 0.5 %青岛: 0.5 %其他上海中卫临汾保定兰州北京十堰南京台州吉林呼和浩特哥伦布大兴安岭大同大庆天津常州广安广州张家口扬州杭州松原武汉漯河石家庄芒廷维尤萍乡西宁西安西雅图诺沃克贵阳运城邯郸郑州鄂尔多斯银川长沙青岛

Catalog

    Figures(6)  / Tables(7)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (283) PDF downloads(4) Cited by(12)
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return