Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Physical model tests and numerical simulations reveal complex stability behaviors in tunnel expansion, suggesting new reinforcement strategies.
In situ tunnel expansion provides a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable alternative to new tunnel construction. However, staged widening disturbs the lining–rock system, triggering complex, non-monotonic stability responses. This study integrates physical model tests and FLAC3D simulations to investigate the mechanical evolution of a limestone tunnel widened by the Center Diaphragm (CD) method. Seven cross-sections (S1–S7) were fabricated and tested under uniaxial compression with digital image correlation. Results show that the peak load decreases from 385.73 kN in the lined baseline (S1) to 184.14 kN at the first unilateral cut (S3), a 49% reduction, but recovers to 262.28 kN at the left-half closure (S4) before dropping to 128.16 kN at the upper-right excavation (S5). The final relined stage (S7) regains 200.69 kN, a 40% improvement over the unlined enlarged state (S6). Numerical analyses confirm this non-monotonic trajectory in terms of the peak plastic-zone fraction. It reaches at 86.32% in S3, decreases to 74.03% in S4, and rises to 76.43% in S5. The fractions further reach 88.51% in S6 and 87.70% in S7, reflecting the enlarged span and redistributed yielding. Targeted bolting at weak stages S3 and S5 reduced plastic-zone fraction by 14.73 and 4.75 percentage points, and reduced crown settlement by 68% and 41%, respectively. These findings challenge the conventional monotonic degradation assumption, identify S3 and S5 as critical weak links, and validate selective reinforcement for enhancing stability during tunnel expansion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: