【作者】 王洲亚； 贾瑞华； 童念； 周思源； 杨军；

【Author】 Wang Zhouya;Jia Ruihua;Tong Nian;Zhou Siyuan;Yang Jun;CSCEC International Construction Co., Ltd;Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Ministry of Education, Tsinghua University;

【机构】 中建国际建设有限公司； 清华大学土木工程安全与耐久教育部重点实验室；

【摘要】 本文对比了中国《铁路隧道设计规范》(TB 10003-2016)和斯里兰卡地区某复合式衬砌隧洞工程的设计技术文件,研究两国隧道支护设计理念及安全性差异。首先对比已有文献中围岩基本质量指标修正值[BQ]与岩体地质力学分级指标RMR值的拟合关系,对BQ围岩分级法与RMR围岩分级法的等级对应关系表进行更新。之后收集对比BQ围岩分级法和RMR围岩分级法的围岩支护设计参数的差异,通过隧道支护结构的安全系数计算,发现与中国相比,斯里兰卡地区II级围岩初期支护更为保守,III、IV级围岩喷层更为保守,而中国规范中二衬更为保守。造成以上差异的原因是斯里兰卡地区各等级围岩中的隧道工程考虑初期支护和二衬共同受力,整体来说,初期支护承载比例更高,二衬承载比例相对低一些。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper compares the design technical documents of a composite lining tunnel project in Sri Lanka and Chinese Code for Design of Railway Tunnel(TB 10003-2016), and studies the differences in design concepts and safety of tunnel support between two countries. Firstly, the fitting relationships between the correction value of the surrounding rock basic quality index [BQ] and the rock mass rating RMR value in the existing literature are compared, and the grade correspondence table of BQ surrounding rock classification method and RMR surrounding rock classification method is updated. Then collect and compare the differences of surrounding rock support design parameters between BQ surrounding rock classification method and RMR surrounding rock classification method,and calculate the safety factor of tunnel support structure. It is found that the primary support of grade II surrounding rock and the spray layer of grade III and IV surrounding rock in Sri Lanka is more conservative than that in China. But the secondary lining in Chinese code is more conservative. The reason for the above differences is that the tunnel engineering in various grades of surrounding rock in Sri Lanka considers the joint load carrying of primary support and secondary lining, and on the whole, the bearing ratio of primary support is higher, and the bearing ratio of secondary lining is relatively low.更多还原