摘要
随着高速铁路快速发展,速度350 km/h铁路日益增加,特长隧道分合修的问题直接影响到施工、运营等方面。通过对国内外特长隧道比较,结合西安至十堰高铁秦岭马白山隧道,从防灾救援、运营维修、空气动力学、施工组织及工程投资等方面对分合修方案进行比较,合修方案对于本隧道更有优势。研究结论:(1)分合修均需要设置不同形式洞内救援,人员疏散时间和通风排烟模式均满足要求(2)运营维护方面,由于在事故工况下分修两管隧道互不影响,具有一定优势;(3)空气动力学方面,由于合修断面大,相比分修对乘客及洞口建筑影响较小,略有优势;(4)施工方面,由于合修场地空间较大,效率较高;(5)分修隧道工程投资较合修方案增加约50%,合修方案优势明显;(6)本研究成果适用于高速铁路特长隧道分合修方案比选。
350km/h railway is increasing with the rapid development of high-speed railway.The selection of single double-track tunnel tube or twin single-track tunnel tubes effects the construction,operation and other aspects.This article compares domestic and foreign long tunnels with Mabaishan Tunnel of Xi'an-Shiyan High-speed Railway in Qinling in terms of disaster prevention and rescue,operation and maintenance,aerodynamics,construction organization and engineering investment.Analysis conclusion:(1)Both single double-track tube and twin single-track tubes need to set different forms of rescue mode inside tunnel,and both evacuation time and ventilation and smoke exhaust mode fulfill requirements.(2)Twin single-track tunnel tubes is better than single double-track tube in operation and maintenance in case of accident(3)Due to large space and less impact on portal structure,single double-track tunnel tube is a little more efficient and superior compared with twin single-track tunnel tubes as far as aerodynamic is concerned.(4)Twin single-track tunnel tubes may increase the project investment by 50%than twin single-track tunnel tubes,and the former has obvious advantage.(5)The research results are applicable to the comparison of twin single-track tunnel tubes with single double-track tunnel tube of high speed railway tunnel.
作者
刘陆拓
LIU Lutuo(China Railway First Survey And Design Institute Group Co.,Ltd.(FSDI),Xi'an 710043,China;Shaanxi Railway and Underground Traffic Engineering Key Laboratory(FSDI),Xi'an 710043,China)
出处
《铁道标准设计》
北大核心
2020年第9期120-126,共7页
Railway Standard Design
关键词
西(安)十(堰)高铁
铁路隧道
特长隧道
分合修要素
方案比较
Xi'an-Shiyan High-speed Railway
railway tunnel
extra long tunnel
twin single-track tubes and single double-track tube
comparison of schemes