Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Forces

Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute >

2026 , Vol. 43 >Issue 1: 202 - 209

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11988/ckyyb.20241186

Basic Theories and Key Technologies for Major Water Diversion Projects

Influence of Seepage Control Measures During Deep-Burial Tunnel Construction on External Water Pressure on Tunnel Lining

  • LI Ming-wei , 1 ,
  • LI Yu-feng 2 ,
  • CUI Hao-dong 1 ,
  • LI Shao-long 1 ,
  • SUN Yun , 3
Expand
  • 1 Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Mechanics and Engineering of Ministry of Water Resources,Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute,Wuhan 430010,China
  • 2 Central Yunnan Water Diversion Construction Management Bureau,Kunming 650051,China
  • 3 Central Yunnan Water Diversion Engineering Co.,Ltd., Kunming 650000, China

Received date: 2024-11-21

  Revised date: 2025-03-31

  Accepted date: 2025-04-03

  Online published: 2025-04-30

Fold

Abstract

[Objective] The Xianglushan Tunnel is a challenging and key control project of the Central Yunnan Water Diversion Project. Branch Tunnel No.7 of the Xianglushan Tunnel, located in Songgui Town, Heqing County, Dali Prefecture, Yunnan Province, generally lies at a depth of 600-1 300 m, with a maximum burial depth of 1 415 m. High external water pressure is regarded as a major threat to its safety. Existing studies on tunnel external water pressure have mostly assumed homogeneous strata, paying relatively little attention to geological structures. The influence of geological structures—particularly the presence of aquitard layers above the tunnel—remains to be investigated in depth.[Methods] A typical deep-burial section of the Central Yunnan Water Diversion Project was investigated through field observations and numerical simulation to study the external water pressure acting on the tunnel lining. The effects of geological structures and seepage control measures on the external water pressure were analyzed to provide a reference for the design and construction of deep-burial tunnels.[Results] During in-situ drilling, groundwater in the tunnel was identified as fissure groundwater. Obvious water inflow occurred if a borehole intersected water-conducting fissures; otherwise, the boreholes remained essentially dry. Monitoring data from five piezometers installed in the tunnel over nearly one year indicated that the external water pressure around the unlined tunnel during construction was relatively low, only several meters of water head. Numerical simulation of the seepage field revealed that higher rock permeability and shorter distance between the tunnel and water-conducting structures increased both external water pressure and seepage discharge. Impermeable linings, while blocking water, caused an increase in external water pressure. Drainage holes, while reducing external water pressure, resulted in an increase in tunnel seepage discharge. Under specific geological structures and seepage control measures, tunnel excavation and drainage may only cause local groundwater drawdown around the tunnel, without affecting the regional phreatic surface.[Conclusion] In the model of this study, an aquitard layer with relatively low permeability exists above the tunnel, which limits the influence range of tunnel drainage. As a result, drainage only forms a localized desaturation zone between the tunnel and the aquitard, exerting minimal effect on groundwater above the aquitard. This localized desaturation explains the phenomenon observed in tunnel projects in water-rich areas, where the regional phreatic surface is high while the external water pressure acting on the tunnel remains relatively low. Near the tunnel face, equipotential lines are densely spaced, and the hydraulic gradient is relatively large, whereas a smaller gradient prevails behind the face. This indicates that greater seepage pressure is imposed near the tunnel face, explaining why seepage-induced failures frequently occur in this area.

Key words： deep-burial tunnel; tunnel seepage control measures; aquitard lining; external water pressure; numerical simulation; Central Yunnan Water Diversion Project

Cite this article

LI Ming-wei , LI Yu-feng , CUI Hao-dong , LI Shao-long , SUN Yun . Influence of Seepage Control Measures During Deep-Burial Tunnel Construction on External Water Pressure on Tunnel Lining[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2026 , 43(1) : 202 -209 . DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20241186

0 引言

滇中引水工程是中国西南地区规模最大、投资最多的水资源配置工程。香炉山隧洞是滇中引水工程的难点和控制性工程,位于大理州鹤庆县松桂镇境内,属于深埋隧洞工程。
深埋隧洞外水压力是隧洞设计需要考虑的重要参数。隧洞衬砌外水压力受隧洞埋深、水头高度、围岩渗流特征、隧洞渗控措施等因素的影响[1-3]。一般认为完全排水型隧洞外水压力基本为0,完全隔水型隧洞外水压力基本等于静水压力,限制排水型隧洞外水压力介于以上2种情况之间[4]。隧洞外水压力的计算通常可以采用折减系数法、解析法、数值计算法和模型试验法。
《水工隧洞设计规范》[5]考虑地下水活动状态,给出了计算外水压力的折减系数法。折减系数受诸多因素影响,包括隧洞穿越山脊或山谷的位置[6-8]、岩溶发育程度[9]、隧洞衬砌结构形式[10-11]、隧洞灌浆排水设计等[12]。折减系数法虽然计算简单,但是受主观因素影响较大,且对于超大埋深的隧洞折减系数确定困难。
解析法数学物理概念清晰[13-14],可以从理论上获得岩体渗透性、灌浆圈、衬砌排水性等因素对外水压力的影响规律,但解析法假设条件较多,应用时需对实际问题做较多简化,适用于条件简单的隧洞外水压力计算[15-17]。与解析法相比,数值计算法适应性更强,不仅可以满足复杂地质条件下的计算需求[18],对于复杂的渗控设计也可以量化各种影响因素的敏感性[19-22],为隧洞渗控设计提供支撑。
模型试验法对于外水压力的研究更加直接,丁浩等[23]、高新强等[24]、于丽等[25]、李林毅等[26]针对隧洞渗流场和外水压力先后开展了物理模型试验研究。王如宾等[27]基于模型试验,给出了多种工况下外水压力折减系数的取值建议。
现有的隧洞外水压力研究多假设均质地层,对于地质结构的关注相对较少,而地质构造对于隧洞外水压力的影响有待深入研究,特别是隧洞上方存在隔水性地层的情况。本文针对滇中引水工程典型深埋隧洞段,使用现场观测和数值计算手段开展深埋隧洞外水压力研究,讨论了地质结构和渗控措施对隧洞衬砌外水压力的影响,可以为深埋隧洞工程的设计施工提供参考。

1 工程概况

滇中引水工程总干渠全长约664.24 km,包含隧洞58座,长612 km,占比92.13%。大理Ⅰ段施工3标位于大理州鹤庆县松桂镇境内,线路长约26.542 km,包括21.277 km的TBM掘进段,4.67 km的钻爆段和595 m的双孔U型渡槽段。此标段工程地质和水文地质条件复杂,隧洞采用无压输水、断面为圆形,成洞后内径8.3~8.8 m,设计流量135 m3/s,设计纵坡1/1 800,线路桩号为(DLI36+800— DLI63+342)[28-31]。
香炉山7#支洞位置见图1,此段隧洞埋深一般为600~1 300 m,最大埋深1 415 m。此段岩性主要有玄武岩(饱和抗压强度30~140 MPa)、灰岩及白云岩(饱和抗压强度10~80 MPa)、砂泥岩等,岩体强度部分试验值最高197 MPa。7#支洞穿越12条断层带,其中鹤庆—洱源断层(F12)为活跃断裂,其宽度约165 m。F12断层带的构造为角砾岩、碎粒岩,胶结较差,岩质较疏松,砂页岩夹泥灰岩,岩体较破碎,该断裂带附近成洞条件差,存在洞室剪断破坏问题。断裂带及影响带总体透水性较好,属裂隙性中等至强透水岩体,存在涌水突泥、高外水压力和软岩挤压大变形问题。F12断层带桩号DLI53+343.6—328.6段为淋雨状出水,局部股状出水,出水情况见图1。论文成文时隧洞仍在F12断层带附近钻进施工,隧洞入口部分施加了二衬结构,仍有超过一半洞段处于初衬状态。
图1 香炉山7#支洞位置

Fig.1 Location of branch tunnel No.7 of Xianglushan Tunnel

2 隧洞渗压监测分析

2.1 渗压计埋设情况

在香炉山7#支洞内设置2个渗压监测断面,共埋设5支渗压计。其中3号监测断面桩号为DLI53+560,4号监测断面桩号为DLI53+353,监测断面位置见图2,钻孔布置情况见图3,钻孔情况见表1。2个监测断面均位于隧洞渗水较强的洞段,3号断面位于砂岩段,4号断面位于F12鹤庆—洱源断裂带内,2个监测断面相距约215 m。TBM刚掘进至鹤庆—洱源断层时洞段总涌水量约160 m3/h,掌子面附近的涌水量最大,其他位置出水量较小。采用加拿大ROCKTEST公司PWS系列振弦式渗压计监测水压力,其量程为0~7 MPa,压力自动采集存储联网传输,采集频率为4次/d。
图2 香炉山7#支洞监测断面位置

Fig.2 Location of monitoring section in branch tunnel No.7 of Xianglushan Tunnel

图3 香炉山7#支洞3号和4号监测断面布置

Fig.3 Layout of monitoring sections No.3 and No.4 in branch tunnel No.7 of Xianglushan Tunnel

表1 渗压计埋设情况及观测成果统计(2024年9月25日)

Table 1 Statistics of installation and observation results of piezometers (September 25, 2024)

监测
断面		 桩号 钻孔
编号		 渗压计
编号		 埋深/
m		 压力水
头/m		 地质
条件		 钻孔
类型
3号 53+560 3-1 SYJ01 9.0 0.39 砂岩段 水平孔
3-2 SYJ02 15.6 1.14 砂岩段 水平孔
3-3 SYJ03 17.0 18.79 砂岩段 垂直孔
4号 53+344.6 4-2 SYJ04 5.5 0.94 F12断层 水平孔
53+346.9 4-3 SYJ05 3.5 0.12 F12断层 水平孔

2.2 渗压监测成果

渗压监测成果见表1和图4,监测发现水平孔渗压均较低,其中渗压最大的点位于鹤庆—洱源断裂带内靠近掌子面的4号渗压计,但最大压力水头仅有2 m左右。SYJ03渗压计压力水头略大于其埋设深度,显示出一定的承压性,这与该钻孔成孔后的涌水现象相符合。本洞段施工期渗压较低,主要原因在于施工期裸洞属于排泄面,渗压在洞壁随地下水的排泄释放;另外根据现场钻孔情况,3号断面地下水属于裂隙水,涌水主要从主导水裂隙通道排泄,若揭露导水通道则会发生明显涌水,否则基本无水。对于岩体渗透性较小的深埋隧洞,隧洞周围监测到的压力水头可能较低。
图4 渗压监测4号断面成果

Fig.4 Monitoring results of seepage pressure at Section 4

3 数值模拟分析

3.1 有限元计算模型

参考7#支洞地质条件,构建了有限元模型。模型底部高1 800 m,顶部高3 300 m,模型宽1 000 m;隧洞直径4.2 m,长度2 000 m,洞轴线高程2 000 m。模型考虑4个地层和1条断层带。将隧洞穿越区域平均分为5段,每段长度400 m,从内到外分别编号洞段1—洞段5,考虑洞段2和洞段4所处地层渗透性较大。在洞段5的顶板40°范围内设置排水孔,排水孔半径5 cm,长度3 m,设置20个排水孔断面,断面间距20 m,每个断面设置3个排水孔,共设置60个排水孔。模型剖面大部分采用六面体网格,少量采用五面体棱柱网格,模型共包含878 710个单元,155 268个网格节点。模型情况见图5。模型中地质结构的特点在于隧洞顶部存在相对隔水地层,和隧洞穿越多个渗透性差异巨大的洞段后前方遭遇导水性断层,这一地层结构特点更符合真实情况,且可以反映出隔水性地层的存在对于隧洞渗流场的影响,该影响在以往研究中没有得到足够的重视。另外,隧洞渗控措施主要考虑隔水型衬砌,透水型衬砌和排水孔。
图5 有限元模型及材料分区

Fig.5 Finite element model and material zoning

在断层带位置设置定水头边界,水头设置为3 000 m。隧洞内壁设置为零压力面边界,其余边界面设置为隔水边界。根据地质报告,结合隧洞开挖揭露情况和工程类比,确定模型材料参数(表2)。渗流模拟工况设计情况见表3。其中工况1(GK1)基础工况,分析天然渗流场状态;工况2(GK2),隧洞开挖后不考虑衬砌作用工况;工况3(GK3),考虑部分洞段施加隔水衬砌,另外部分洞段隔水衬砌设置排水孔。工况2和工况3反映了隧洞施工过程中从裸洞到施加衬砌和排水孔措施的典型状态。
表2 材料参数取值

Table 2 Values of material parameters

编号 材料 渗透系数/(cm·s-1)
1 地表风化层 1×10-3
2 泥岩页岩层 1×10-5
3 中部泥页页岩夹层 1×10-7
4 下部泥页页岩层 2×10-5
5 高透水洞段2和洞段4 5×10-4
6 鹤庆—洱源断裂带断层带 1×10-2
7 隧洞隔水型衬砌 1×10-7
8 隧洞1倍洞径影响带 5×10-5
表3 渗流模拟工况设计

Table 3 Design of seepage simulation conditions

工况
编号		 模型设置 工况说明
GK1 洞壁隔水边界 模拟天然情况下地下水渗流状态
GK2 洞壁零压力边界,且不考虑衬砌 考虑隧洞为裸洞状态,衬砌透水性与周围岩体相同
GK3 洞壁零压力边界;洞段1和2不考虑衬砌;洞段3、4和5考虑隔水衬砌,且洞段5考虑排水孔 考虑掌子面附近的洞段1和3裸洞,衬砌渗透性与周围岩体相同;其余3个洞段考虑施加隔水衬砌,渗透系数为10-7 cm/s,洞段5排水孔自由排水

3.2 计算结果

基于有限元方法,利用地下水渗流稳态模型计算隧洞周围渗流场情况。为了清晰地展示计算结果,在模型中设置2条剖面线,分别是沿着洞轴线方向的剖面AA'和垂直于洞轴线方向的剖面BB',剖面位置见图6。图7展示了隧洞周围渗流场计算结果。
图6 二维剖面位置示意图

Fig.6 Schematic diagram showing position of two-dimensional cross-sections

图7 隧洞纵横剖面方向上压力水头分布情况(GK1—GK3)

Fig.7 Pressure head distribution along longitudinal and transverse profiles of tunnel (GK1-GK3)

由图7(a)可知,对于天然状态(GK1),隧洞高程位置等水头线水平状均匀分布,随着深度的增加,压力水头线性增长。
由图7(b)可知,对于隧洞开挖后不考虑衬砌工况(GK2),隧洞开挖排水引起地下水向隧洞方向渗流,在洞段3、4和5附近等水头线稀疏,隧洞上方出现局部自由面。结果表明隧洞排水疏干了隧洞周围局部区域的地下水,并在隧洞上方形成疏干区,但隧洞排水并没有引起地下水位的大幅度降低,即没有形成地下水降落漏斗。渗流场出现以上特征的原因在于隧洞埋深较大,达到1 300 m,且隧洞上方存在渗透性较小的地层阻碍了隧洞排水的疏干作用。另外,在隧洞掌子面附近水头线分布较密集,渗透坡降相对较大,而隧洞后方渗透坡降较小,表明隧洞掌子面承受着较大的渗透坡降,也揭示了隧洞施工中渗透破坏常发生于掌子面附近的原因。
图7(c)显示隧洞开挖后考虑隔水衬砌的工况(GK3)的渗流场等水头线分布情况。不考虑衬砌洞段(洞段1和2),水头等值线分布情况与工况2类似。在隔水施加衬砌洞段(洞段3、4和5),压力水头略有增大,表明洞壁隔水衬砌会导致外水压力升高。
地层和隧洞渗控措施会影响隧洞外水压力分布特征,隧洞排水疏干了隧洞周围一定范围内的地下水。在洞段4的起始断面位置取一条竖直截线,绘制隧洞顶部水头与位置高程的关系(见图8)。天然工况下(GK1),潜水面位置高程3 000 m,在潜水面与隧洞(高程2 000 m)之间,压力水头随着埋深的增加线性增长。对于GK2,隧洞排水导致隧洞顶部水头降低,在高程2 000~2 200 m之间压力水头为0,在2 200~2 400 m之间压力水头逐渐增大,而2 400 m高程以上的压力水头与GK1基本相同。由于中部泥页岩夹层的渗透性较小,具有一定的隔水作用,影响了隧洞排水疏干的范围,因此隧洞排水没有对地下水位造成较大影响。
图8 隧洞顶部垂直方向上压力水头与高程的关系

Fig.8 Relationship between pressure head and elevation in vertical direction at top of tunnel

在隧洞顶部衬砌外侧取截线,分析沿隧洞轴线压力水头分布情况,结果见图9。可以发现,隧洞外水压力同时受地质条件和工程渗控措施的影响,岩体渗透性大、隧洞与导水构造的距离近、隔水衬砌的设置都将使隧洞外水压力增大,而排水孔的设置将使外水压力减小。
图9 隧洞顶部衬砌外压力水头分布情况

Fig.9 Distribution of external water pressure on lining at top of tunnel

天然情况下,GK1显示隧洞位置处压力水头为1 000 m。隧洞开挖后不考虑衬砌的隔水作用,GK2显示衬砌外水压力较低,压力水头基本<5 m。考虑隔水衬砌情况下,GK3显示隔水衬砌外水压力明显升高,最大达到60 m水头,且岩体透水性较大的洞段(洞段2和洞段4)分别与相邻的洞段相比(洞段1和洞段3)外水压力更大。GK2和GK3中,在掌子面附近,外水压力有明显升高,其原因在于掌子面前方存在透水断层F12。在隔水衬砌洞段(洞段5)增加排水孔可以有效降低衬砌外水压力,排水孔处外水压力降为0,排水孔之间压力水头在35 m左右。
以上模拟结果表明,隧洞外水压力同时受地质条件和工程渗控措施的影响。在一定的地质结构和渗控措施条件下隧洞开挖排水可能不影响地表附近地下水潜水位,仅仅引起隧洞局部的地下水疏干,这也解释了富水区域地下水潜水位很高,但隧洞周围监测获得的压力水头却较低的现象(表1)。
表4统计了隧洞渗流量情况,可看出隧洞渗流量同时受地质条件和工程措施的影响,岩体渗透性大、与导水构造的距离近、排水孔的设置都将使隧洞渗流量增大,而隔水衬砌的设置将使渗流量减小。方案GK2和方案GK3均显示在岩体渗透性较大的洞段(洞段2和洞段4)渗流量也较大,靠近掌子面的洞段1渗流量略大。靠近掌子面流量较大的一个原因在于,掌子面距离透水性断层F12较近。方案GK2和方案GK3对比来看,隔水衬砌有效降低了隧洞渗流量,方案GK3的洞段3、4和5渗流量均较小。另外排水孔的存在也导致洞段5的渗流量增大。
表4 模型中5个洞段渗流量统计

Table 4 Statistics of seepage flow in five tunnel sections in the model

计算方案 隧洞渗流量/(m3·d-1)
洞段1 洞段2 洞段3 洞段4 洞段5
GK2 2 889.50 5 639.40 687.78 1 390.70 531.45
GK3 3 025.70 6 845.80 114.57 155.68 266.08

4 结论

针对深埋隧洞外水压力问题,基于滇中引水典型深埋隧洞开展了现场监测和数值模拟分析,取得了一些新的认识:
(1)隧洞渗压监测数据表明,由于隧洞的排水作用,洞壁外水压力较低,可能仅有几米水头;隧洞围岩地下水属于裂隙水,地下水沿裂隙通道流动,若揭露导水通道则会发生明显涌水,否则基本无水。
(2)在一定的地质结构和渗控措施条件下隧洞开挖排水可能仅仅引起隧洞局部的地下水疏干,而不影响地下水潜水位。在富水区域的隧洞工程中,存在地下水潜水位很高,但隧洞外水压力却较低的现象。
(3)隧洞外水压力和渗流量同时受地质条件和工程渗控措施的影响,岩体渗透性大、隧洞与导水构造的距离近将使得外水压力和渗流量增大,隔水衬砌阻水的同时将导致外水压力增大,而排水孔降低外水压力的同时将导致隧洞渗流量增大。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
黄威, 孙云, 张建平, 等. 深埋隧洞高外水压力研究进展[J]. 三峡大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 45(5):1-11.

(HUANG Wei, SUN Yun, ZHANG Jian-ping, et al. Research Review on High External Water Pressure of Deep-buried Tunnels[J]. Journal of China Three Gorges University (Natural Sciences), 2023, 45(5): 1-11.) (in Chinese)

[2]
陈崇希, 刘文波, 彭涛. 确定隧道外水压力的地下水流模型: 读《深埋隧道外水压力计算的解析-数值法》一文随笔[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2002, 29(5): 62-64.

(CHEN Chong-xi, LIU Wen-bo, PENG Tao. A Groundwater Flow Model for Determining the Tunnel External Water Pressure—Impressions of “the Simulation of Deep Tunnel External Water Pressure by Analytical-numerical Method[J]. Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, 2002, 29(5): 62-64.) (in Chinese)

[3]
王建宇. 隧道围岩渗流和衬砌水压力荷载[J]. 铁道建筑技术, 2008(2): 1-6.

(WANG Jian-yu. Problems on External Water Pressure on Tunnel Lining[J]. Railway Construction Technology, 2008(2): 1-6.) (in Chinese)

[4]
黄红元. 富水环境下水工隧洞渗流计算及结构外水压力研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆交通大学, 2021.

(HUANG Hong-yuan. Study on Seepage Calculation and External Water Pressure of Structure of Hydraulic Tunnel in Water-rich Environment[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing Jiaotong University, 2021.) (in Chinese)

[5]
SL 279—2016, 水工隧洞设计规范[S]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2016.

(SL 279—2016, Specification for Design of Hydraulic Tunnel[S]. Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2016.) (in Chinese)

[6]
张有天. 隧洞及压力管道设计中的外水压力修正系数[J]. 水力发电, 1996, 22(12): 30-34.

(ZHANG You-tian. Correction Factor of External Water Pressure in Design of Tunnel and Penstock[J]. Water Power, 1996, 22(12): 30-34.) (in Chinese)

[7]
张有天. 岩石隧道衬砌外水压力问题的讨论[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2003, 40(3): 1-4, 10.

(ZHANG You-tian. Discussion on External Hydraulic Pressure Upon Rock Tunnel Lining[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2003, 40(3): 1-4, 10.) (in Chinese)

[8]
董国贤. 水下公路隧道[M]. 北京: 人民交通出版社,1984.

(DONG Guo-xian. Underwater Highway Tunnel[M]. Beijing: China Communications Press,1984.) (in Chinese)

[9]
邹成杰. 水利水电岩溶工程地质[M]. 北京: 水利电力出版社,1994.

(ZOU Cheng-jie. Karst Engineering Geology of Water Conservancy and Hydropower[M]. Beijing: Water Resources and Electric Power Press,1994.) (in Chinese)

[10]
刘立鹏, 汪小刚, 贾志欣, 等. 水岩分算隧道衬砌外水压力折减系数取值方法[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2013, 35(3):495-500.

(LIU Li-peng, WANG Xiao-gang, JIA Zhi-xin, et al. Method to Determine Reduction Factor of Water Pressure Acting on Tunnel Linings Using Water-rock Independent Calculation Methodology[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 35(3): 495-500.) (in Chinese)

[11]
刘立鹏, 汪小刚, 段庆伟, 等. 隧洞衬砌外水压力的取值方法与应对措施研究[J]. 水利水电技术, 2017, 48(8):63-67,80.

(LIU Li-peng, WANG Xiao-gang, DUAN Qing-wei, et al. Study on Value-selection Method and Countermeasures for External Water Pressure of Tunnel Lining[J]. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, 2017, 48(8): 63-67, 80.) (in Chinese)

[12]
顾伟, 董琪, 王媛, 等. 运营期铁路隧道衬砌外水压力折减方法[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2018, 18(12):280-285.

(GU Wei, DONG Qi, WANG Yuan, et al. Reduction Method of External Water Pressure on the Lining of Railway Tunnels during Operating Period[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2018, 18(12):280-285.) (in Chinese)

[13]
王建秀, 杨立中, 何静. 深埋隧道衬砌水荷载计算的基本理论[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2002, 21(9):1339-1343.

(WANG Jian-xiu, YANG Li-zhong, HE Jing. Introduction to the Calculation of External Water Pressure of Tunnel Lining[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2002, 21(9): 1339-1343.) (in Chinese)

[14]
WANG X, TAN Z, WANG M, et al. Theoretical and Experimental Study of External Water Pressure on Tunnel Lining in Controlled Drainage under High Water Level[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2008, 23(5): 552-560.

DOI

[15]
吴金刚, 谭忠盛, 皇甫明. 高水压隧道渗流场分布的复变函数解析解[J]. 铁道工程学报, 2010, 27(9): 31-34, 68.

(WU Jin-gang, TAN Zhong-sheng, HUANGFU Ming. Analytic Solution of Complex Function to Distribution of Seepage Field of Tunnel with High Water Pressure[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2010, 27(9): 31-34, 68.) (in Chinese)

[16]
郑波, 王建宇, 吴剑. 轴对称解对隧道衬砌水压力计算的适用性研究[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2012, 49(1):60-65.

(ZHENG Bo, WANG Jian-yu, WU Jian. A Study of the Applicability of an Axisymmetric Solution for Calculating the Water Pressure on a Tunnel Lining[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2012, 49(1): 60-65.) (in Chinese)

[17]
应宏伟, 朱成伟, 龚晓南. 考虑注浆圈作用水下隧道渗流场解析解[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2016, 50(6): 1018-1023.

(YING Hong-wei, ZHU Cheng-wei, GONG Xiao-nan. Analytic Solution on Seepage Field of Underwater Tunnel Considering Grouting Circle[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering Science), 2016, 50(6): 1018-1023.) (in Chinese)

[18]
张继勋, 任旭华, 姜弘道, 等. 高外水压力下隧道工程的渗控措施研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2006, 33(6):62-65.

(ZHANG Ji-xun, REN Xu-hua, JIANG Hong-dao, et al. Study on Seepage Control Measure of Tunnel with High External Underground Water Pressure[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2006, 33(6):62-65.) (in Chinese)

[19]
周亚峰, 苏凯, 伍鹤皋. 水工隧洞钢筋混凝土衬砌外水压力取值方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2014, 35(增刊2): 198-203, 210.

(ZHOU Ya-feng, SU Kai, WU He-gao. Study of External Water Pressure Estimation Method for Reinforced Concrete Lining of Hydraulic Tunnels[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2014, 35(Supp. 2): 198-203, 210.) (in Chinese)

[20]
孙博, 谷玲, 谢金元, 等. 高外水压力下水工隧洞设计理念的初步探讨[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2017, 13(增刊2):752-756.

(SUN Bo, GU Ling, XIE Jin-yuan, et al. Preliminary Discussion on Design Concept of Hydraulic Tunnel under High External Water Pressure[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2017, 13(Supp. 2): 752-756.) (in Chinese)

[21]
伍国军, 陈卫忠, 谭贤君, 等. 饱和岩体渗透性动态演化对引水隧洞稳定性的影响研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2020, 39(11): 2172-2182.

(WU Guo-jun, CHEN Wei-zhong, TAN Xian-jun, et al. Effect of the Permeability Dynamic Evolution of Saturated Rock on the Stability of Diversion Tunnels[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2020, 39(11): 2172-2182.) (in Chinese)

[22]
苏凯, 杨逢杰, 年夫喜, 等. 超深埋隧洞防渗排水措施与衬砌外水压力分布规律[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 55(6): 2222-2235.

(SU Kai, YANG Feng-jie, NIAN Fu-xi, et al. Anti-seepage and Drainage Measures of Ultra-deep Buried Tunnel and Distribution Law of External Water Pressure of Lining[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2024, 55(6): 2222-2235.) (in Chinese)

[23]
丁浩, 蒋树屏, 陈林杰. 公路隧道外水压力的相似模型试验研究[J]. 公路交通科技, 2008, 25(10):99-104.

(DING Hao, JIANG Shu-ping, CHEN Lin-jie. Study on Similar Model Test for External Water Pressure of Highway Tunnel[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2008, 25(10):99-104.) (in Chinese)

[24]
高新强, 仇文革, 孔超. 高水压隧道修建过程中渗流场变化规律试验研究[J]. 中国铁道科学, 2013, 34(1): 50-58.

(GAO Xin-qiang, QIU Wen-ge, KONG Chao. Test Study on the Variation Law of Seepage Field during the Construction Process of High Water Pressure Tunnel[J]. China Railway Science, 2013, 34(1): 50-58.) (in Chinese)

[25]
于丽, 方霖, 董宇苍, 等. 基于围岩渗透影响范围的隧道外水压力计算方法模型试验研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2018, 37(10): 2288-2298.

(YU Li, FANG Lin, DONG Yu-cang, et al. Research on the Evaluation Method of the Hydraulic Pressure on Tunnel Lining According to the Range of Seepage Field[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 37(10): 2288-2298.) (in Chinese)

[26]
李林毅, 阳军生, 高超, 等. 排水管堵塞引起的高铁隧道结构变形与渗流场特征模拟试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2021, 43(4): 715-724.

(LI Lin-yi, YANG Jun-sheng, GAO Chao, et al. Simulation Tests on Structural Deformation and Seepage Field of High-speed Railway Tunnels under Drainage Clogging[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2021, 43(4): 715-724.) (in Chinese)

[27]
王如宾, 王新越, 张文全, 等. 含交叉断层深埋隧洞围岩衬砌外水压力物理模型试验[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 64(7): 1179-1192.

DOI

(WANG Ru-bin, WANG Xin-yue, ZHANG Wen-quan, et al. Physical Model Experiment of External Water Pressure in Lining Surrounding Rock of a Deep Tunnel with Cross Faults[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 2024, 64(7): 1179-1192.) (in Chinese)

[28]
陈长生, 张海平, 周云, 等. 滇中引水工程香炉山隧洞勘察关键技术[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2022, 39(12): 8-14.

DOI

(CHEN Chang-sheng, ZHANG Hai-ping, ZHOU Yun, et al. Key Technologies of Investigating Xianglushan Tunnel ofCentral Yunnan Water Diversion Project[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2022, 39(12): 8-14.) (in Chinese)

DOI

[29]
王旺盛, 陈长生, 王家祥, 等. 滇中引水工程香炉山深埋长隧洞主要工程地质问题[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2020, 37(9): 154-159.

DOI

(WANG Wang-sheng, CHEN Chang-sheng, WANG Jia-xiang, et al. Major Engineering Geological Problems of Xianglushan Deep-buried Long Tunnel in Central Yunnan Water Diversion Project[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2020, 37(9): 154-159.) (in Chinese)

DOI

[30]
李建贺, 牛利敏, 王帅, 等. 深埋隧洞穿高压富水断层涌水突泥分析与处置技术[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2024, 41(10): 149-156.

DOI

(LI Jian-he, NIU Li-min, WANG Shuai, et al. Management Technology for Water and Mud Inrush in Deeply Buried Tunnel Crossing High-pressure Water-rich Faults[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2024, 41(10): 149-156.) (in Chinese)

[31]
韩钢, 黄书岭, 丁秀丽, 等. 香炉山隧洞5#支洞应急抢险段围岩参数反演及稳定性分析[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2022, 39(12):56-61,67.

DOI

(HAN Gang, HUANG Shu-ling, DING Xiu-li, et al. Inversion Analysis of Rock Mass Mechanical Parameters and Stability Analysis of Emergency Rescue Section in Adit 5# of Xianglushan Tunnel[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2022, 39(12): 56-61, 67.) (in Chinese)

DOI

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd.