| 三种盾构管片配筋设计方法对比及现场实测分析 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 胡辉,张列,仇文革.三种盾构管片配筋设计方法对比及现场实测分析[J].水文地质工程地质,2012,39(6):72-76. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 胡辉 张列 仇文革 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 西南交通大学土木工程学院，成都 610031 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 通过对比修正惯用法的解析解、ANSYS数值模拟解和ANSYS梁-弹簧模型法数值模拟解，结合东莞至惠州城际轨道交通工程DK97+898.238~DK100+897段管片内力现场实测结果，深入探讨各计算方法的合理性和准确性，并得出以下结论:修正惯用法解析解管片内力及配筋最大，修正惯用法数值解次之，梁-弹簧法数值解与现场实测反算值最小。修正惯用法解析解偏保守，容易造成设计配筋过大和浪费；建模较为复杂的梁-弹簧法及现场实测可反馈设计，其结果表明，修正惯用法数值模拟结果比解析解更接近工程实际，本工程内比解析法可节省配筋22.6%左右，且仍有富余量。
|
| 关 键 词： | 修正惯用法 管片设计 解析解 数值模拟 现场实测 |
Comparative analysis of three methods in shield segment design and onsite monitoring analysis |
| |
| HU Hui
,
ZHANG Lie
,
QIU Wen-ge.Comparative analysis of three methods in shield segment design and onsite monitoring analysis[J].Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology,2012,39(6):72-76. |
| |
| Authors: | HU Hui ZHANG Lie QIU Wen-ge |
| |
| Institution: | School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China |
| |
| Abstract: | At present, according to different mechanic process modes of segment joint in calculation process and different hypotheses of joint stiffness, internal force transfer of longitudinal bolt and loading distribution form, segment lining design of shield tunnel is mainly divided into three methods: the modified routine method, the multi-hinge ring method and the beam-spring method, among them, the modified routine method is also divided into analytic method and numerical simulation method. Based on the local measurement results of segment internal force in Dongguan to Huizhou city railway transit projects DK97+898.238-DK100+897 part, the analytical solution of the modified routine method, the solution of the multi hinge ring method and the beam spring method are compared in this paper, the rationality and accuracy of different calculation methods are obtained, and the conclusions are drawn that segment internal force and reinforcement of the modified routine method analytical solution are the biggest, those of numerical solution take the second place, solution of the beam spring method and field measured calculated value are minimum. Analytical solution is partial conservative, easy to cause the oversize reinforcement and waste. Beam spring method and onsite monitoring may feedback design. The results show that, compared with the analytical solution, numerical solution is closer to the engineering practice, saving 22.6% of reinforcement in this project, while it still have margin. Due to simple and fast calculation processes and economic and reasonable calculation results, the numerical solution of the modified routine method can be widely adopted. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《水文地质工程地质》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《水文地质工程地质》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
