铁路隧道BQ法、<em>Q</em>值法、RMR法相互关系研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (7)

Download: PDF (571 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Research purposes: Surrounding rock classification is a key parameter to be determined in the design and construction of railway tunnels. With the in-depth implementation of China's railway "going out" strategy, it is often difficult for Chinese design engineers and international consultants to reach a consensus on the selection and application of tunnel surrounding rock classification methods, thus affecting the smooth development of overseas projects. In order to study the correlation between Chinese standard BQ method and the international mainstream Q value method and RMR method, the three surrounding rock classification methods, BQ method, Q value method and RMR method, were summarized and compared, and a number of representative railway tunnels at home and abroad were selected to use the above three methods to classify the surrounding rock on the tunnel face of the same chainage, and the classification results were compared and analyzed in combination with other literature research results.
Research conclusions: (1) Q value method and RMR method both have advantages and disadvantages in practical engineering applications, and the determination of site surrounding rock grade should be combined with the Chinese standard BQ method to reach a conclusion. (2) The relationship between [BQ] value and Q value conforms to exponential function, the relationship between [BQ] value and RMR value conforms to linear relationship, and the relationship between Q value and RMR value conforms to logarithmic function. (3) In terms of the difference of research results on the relationship between BQ method, Q value method and RMR method in different literatures, the relationship between Q value and RMR value is the smallest and most widely used, followed by the relationship between [BQ] value and RMR value, and the relationship between [BQ] value and Q value is the largest. (4) This paper establishes a corresponding relation table between the Chinese standard BQ method, the international Q value method and the RMR method for the classification of surrounding rock grades. In the case that the BQ method cannot be applied to the classification of surrounding rock grades, the table can help Chinese design engineers to understand and select the surrounding rock supporting system. The research results will be conducive to the mutual learning and integration between BQ method, international Q value method and RMR method. It has certain guiding significance for overseas tunnel engineering design and construction.

Key words： surrounding rock classification BQ method Q value method RMR method correlation

Received: 21 May 2024

PACS:

U25

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	WANG Youxuan
	SHEN Weisheng
	HUA Lijing
	ZHENG Shilong

Cite this article:

WANG Youxuan,SHEN Weisheng,HUA Lijing, et al. Study on Correlation between BQ Method, Q Value Method and RMR Method of Railway Tunnel[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2024, 41(8): 79-85.

URL:

https://tdgcxb.crec.cn/EN/ OR https://tdgcxb.crec.cn/EN/Y2024/V41/I8/79

[1]	赵玉绂. 国内外主要围岩分类换算原则和方法[J]. 工程地质学报,1993(2):24-31.Zhao Yufu.The Principle and Method for Contrast and Conversion of Principal Rock Mass Classification System at Home and Abroad[J].Journal of Engineering Geology, 1993(2):24-31.
[2]	杨先全. 铁路隧道围岩国标BQ与挪威Q值分级法对比与工程实践[C] //2020年全国土木工程施工技术交流会论文集(上册), 《施工技术》杂志社, 2020: 183-187.Yang Xianquan.Comparison and Engineering Practice of Chinese Standard BQ and Norway Q Value Classification Method for Surrounding Rock of Railway Tunnel[C] //Proceedings of the National Civil Engineering Construction Technology Exchange Meeting in 2020 (First Volume), Construction Technology Magazine, 2020:183-187.
[3]	金立平. 中国公路隧道围岩分级法和挪威Q值法及南非RMR法对应关系探讨[J]. 城市道桥与防洪,2013(3):203-205.Jin Liping.Discussion on Corresponding Relationship between Chinese Highway Tunnel Surrounding Rock Classifying Method and Norway Q Value Method as well as South Africa RMR Method[J]. Urban Roads Bridges and Flood Control, 2013(3): 203-205.
[4]	吴帅彬. Q系统围岩分类及相关参数选取的应用研究[J]. 水电与新能源,2021(5):29-32.Wu Shuaibin.Parameter Value Selection of Q System and Its Application in Rock Classification[J]. Hydropower and New Energy, 2121(5):29-32.
[5]	蔡斌,喻勇,吴晓铭. 《工程岩体分级标准》与Q分类法、RMR分类法的关系及变形参数估算[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2001(S1):1677-1679.Cai Bin, Yu Yong, Wu Xiaoming.Relationship Among National Code, Q System and RMR in Rockmass Classification and Evaluation of Deformation Parameter[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2001( S1 ) :1677-1679.
[6]	Laderian A, Abaspoor M A.The Correlation between RMR and Q Systems in Parts of Iran[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,2012(1):149-158.
[7]	陈理想,陈寿根,涂鹏,等. 地下洞室围岩分级Q值法、RMR法、BQ值法相互关系研究[J]. 路基工程,2017(6):107-112.Chen Lixiang, Chen Shougen, Tu Peng, etc. Study on Mutual Relationships between Surrounding Rock Classifications by Q Value,RMR and BQ Method for Underground Cavern[J]. Subgrade Engineering, 2017(6):107-112.
[8]	曾杰. 走马岭隧道岩体结构特征及围岩稳定性研究[D]. 重庆:重庆大学,2006.Zeng Jie.Study on Mechanical Properties of Rock Mass Structural and the Stability of Surrounding Rock of Zoumaling Tunnel [D].Chongqing:Chongqing University,2006.
[9]	喻勇,尹健民,杨火平,等. 岩体分级方法在水布垭地下厂房工程中的应用[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2004(10):1706-1709.Yu Yong, Yin Jianmin, Yang Huoping, etc. Rock Mass Classification for Underground Power House of Shuibuya Project[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2004(10):1706-1709.
[10]	许宏发,陈锋,王斌,等. 岩体分级BQ与RMR的关系及其力学参数估计[J]. 岩土工程学报,2014(1):195-198.Xu Hongfa, Chen Feng, Wang Bin, etc. Relationship between BQ and RMR for Rock Mass Classification and Estimation of Its Mechanical Parameters[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2014(1): 195-198.
[11]	张恒,张港,孙建春,等. Q值与围岩力学参数的相关性分析与工程应用[J]. 现代隧道技术,2019(5):26-34.Zhang Heng, Zhang Gang, Sun Jianchun, etc. Correlation Analysis of Q Value and Mechanical Parameters of Surrounding Rocks and Its Engineering Application[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2019(5): 26-34.