作　　者： (刘加丽）; (谢红强）; (肖明砾）; (卓莉）; (何江达）;

机构地区： 四川大学水力学与山区河流开发保护国家重点实验室

出　　处： 《水电能源科学》 2017年第8期123-127,共5页

摘　　要： 为揭示某软岩硐室的合理支护时间,结合调压井硐室的结构特征,建立三维有限元模型,基于幂律流变模型,研究了无支护(方案1)、及时支护(方案2)、滞后15d支护(方案3)、滞后30d支护(方案4)四种方案下施工期及完建150d内衬砌的位移、应力和围岩塑性区开展范围。结果表明,方案3衬砌的应力水平和位移较其他2种支护方案小,最大压应力约为方案2的64%、方案4的70%;最大位移约为方案2的2倍、方案4的1.5倍;支护越及时,围岩的塑性区开展范围就越小,但方案3围岩最大塑性区范围为8.5m,与方案2的围岩塑性区相差较小,且塑性区发育深度小于围岩锚固深度,从充分发挥围压自承能力和支护结构的安全性角度综合分析,建议采用方案3。研究结果为此类工程设计提供借鉴。 In order to investigate the reasonable support time of soft rock cavern,three-dimensional finite element model was established by combining with the structural characteristics.Based on the power law constitutive model,the displacement and the stress of the lining and the plastic zone of the surrounding rock was studied when it was construction period and after construction 150 d,which were divided into four kinds of supporting time,including no support,timely support,lagging behind 15 dsupport,lagging behind 30 dsupport.The results show that both the stress and the strain of the lining in Case 3is less than that of other schemes;the maximum principal stress in Case 3is 64% Case 2and 70%Case 4as well as the strain is 2times and 1.5times,respectively.The earlier the support is,the smaller the scope of the plastic zone is.However,the plastic zone in Case 3has little difference with Case 2and the maximum depth is 8.5m,it is less than the anchorage depth,which demonstrate that it is the best time to support.The research results provide reference for similar project design.

关 键 词： 软岩硐室 支护时间 流变 有限元