Experimental Study of the Mechanical Behavior of a Steel Arch Structure Used in the Main Lining of a Highway Tunnel
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Design of Laboratory Test
2.1. Loading and Measuring Platform
2.2. Test Working Conditions
2.3. Steel Utilization Coefficient
3. Analysis of Test Results
3.1. Three-Bar W-Shaped Lattice Girder
- (1)
- Failure mode
- (2)
- Displacement–load relationship
- I.
- When the load is small, the whole steel frame is in the elastic stage. The deformation of each measuring point is linear with the applied load. The distribution of stress on elements is uniform with high stability of the steel frame.
- II.
- With the continuous increase in load, the upper main bar in the midspan of LG-3W-12-1 and LG-3W-14-1 first enters the strengthening stage, and the deformation gradually increases. However, the deformation of the web bar was not obvious (the web bar in the midspan of LG-3W-10-1 firstly enters the strengthening stage, the deformation gradually increases, and drives the deformation of the upper main bar). At this time, the midspan deformation is no longer linear with the applied load, the displacement at each loading stage begins to increase, and the growth rate of the midspan deformation is greater than that of the two sides. At this time, the overall stability of the steel frame begins to decrease and the stress distribution is no longer uniform, especially as the upper main bar in the midspan changes from the original arch shape to horizontal shape, but the steel frame can still withstand the external load.
- III.
- The upper main bars of LG-3W-12-1 and LG-3W-14-1 are pressed into a horizontal state when the load applied hits the limit. The stirrup in the midspan of LG-3W-10-1 begins to show obvious bending deformation while driving the upper main bar to bend downward. The deformation starts to accelerate when the load decreases slowly. After reaching the critical value, the displacement begins to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, the steel frame is judged to have been completely destroyed and the loading is terminated. The failure position is in the midspan, but the structure on both sides of the steel frame is still in the elastic stage, and its mechanical properties are not significantly affected.
- (3)
- Comparative analysis of test results
- I.
- Through comparison, with the increase in the diameter of the web bar, the ultimate bearing capacity of the steel frame is enhanced, and the steel utilization coefficient increases by 4.1% (10–12) and 2.9% (12–14), respectively. The lifting proportion reduces gradually, indicating that the load-bearing capacity of the lattice girder by increasing the diameter of the web bar is about to reach its peak at the current diameter ratio of upper and lower main bars’ diameters.
- II.
- The three-bar W-shaped lattice girder with a web bar diameter of 10 mm yields first when loaded, and the displacement difference between the upper and lower main bars at the stage of failure is greater than that of the other lattice girders, indicating that the reinforcement of the lattice girder is not reasonable and the strength of the web bar is not sufficient, resulting in the failure of the steel frame in advance.
- III.
- Except for the three-bar W-shaped lattice girder with a web bar diameter of 10 mm, all the lattice girders showed the mechanical properties that the upper main bar yields first and the lower main bar remains stable, indicating that the diameter ratio of the upper and lower main bars is irrational. Therefore, the diameter ratio of the upper main bar to the lower main bar should be increased in the design, so as to improve the steel utilization coefficient and overall stability of the steel frame.
3.2. Four-Bar W-Shaped Lattice Girder
- (1)
- Failure mode
- (2)
- Displacement–load relationship
- I.
- When the applied load is small, the whole steel frame is in the elastic stage. The displacement of each measuring point is linearly related to the applied load. At this time, the overall stability of the steel frame is very strong, and the stress on each part is relatively uniform.
- II.
- With the continuous increase in load, the upper main bar in the midspan of the steel frame first enters the strengthening stage, and the lower main bar then enters the strengthening stage almost at the same time. The deformation gradually increases but is not obvious. The displacement in the midspan is no longer linear with the applied load, while the displacement in each loading stage begins to increase. The growth rate of the midspan displacement is greater than that of the left and right spans. At this time, the overall stability of the steel frame begins to decrease, and the distribution of stresses is no longer uniform, especially in the midspan area. The original arch shape becomes horizontal, but the steel frame can still withstand the external load.
- III.
- When the load value applied hits the limit, the midspan area is pressed into a horizontal state. The deformation starts to accelerate when the load falls slowly. After reaching the critical value, the displacement begins to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, the steel frame is judged to have been completely destroyed and the loading is terminated. The failure position is in the midspan, but the structure on both sides of the steel frame is still in the elastic stage, and its mechanical properties are not significantly affected.
- (3)
- Comparative analysis of test results
- I.
- Through comparison, with the increase in the diameter of the web bar, the ultimate bearing capacity of the steel frame is enhanced, and the steel utilization coefficient also increases by 15% (10–12) and 1.6% (12–14), respectively. The lifting proportion is significantly reduced, indicating that under the current diameter ratio of the upper and lower main bars, the bearing capacity of the steel frame by increasing the diameter of the web bar is close to the peak. When the diameter of the main bar of the four-bar W-shaped lattice girder is 22 mm, the diameter of the web bar is set at 12 mm, which is more reasonable.
- II.
- During the loading process, the main bar of the four-bar W-shaped lattice girder with a 10 mm web bar yields first, and the displacement difference between the upper and lower main bars is larger than that of the other lattice girders. And the steel utilization coefficient of this lattice girder is lower than that of other lattice girders, indicating that the reinforcement of the lattice girder is not reasonable and the strength of the web bar is not enough, which destroys the steel frame in advance.
- III.
- In the test, the upper and lower main bars of all steel frames yield successively, indicating that the diameter ratio of the upper and lower main bars is reasonable. This kind of design scheme can be used for a reference in future designs.
3.3. Four-Bar Double 8-Shaped Lattice Girder
- (1)
- Failure mode
- (2)
- Displacement–load relationship
- I.
- When the applied load is small, the whole steel frame is in the elastic stage. The displacement of each measurement point is linearly related to the applied load. At this time, the steel frame is stable, and the stress on each part is relatively uniform.
- II.
- With the continuous increase in load, the upper main bar in the midspan of the steel frame enters the strengthening stage at first, and the lower main bar then enters the strengthening stage almost at the same time. Although the deformation of the whole part gradually increases, the deformation of the web bar is not obvious. The displacement in the midspan is no longer linearly related to the applied load, the displacement in each loading stage starts to increase, and the growth rate of the midspan displacement is greater than that of the left and right spans. At this time, the overall stability of the steel frame begins to decrease, and the stress distribution is no longer uniform, especially in the midspan area, which is turned from the original arching to horizontal, but the steel frame can still withstand the external load.
- III.
- When the applied load reaches the limit, the midspan area is in a depressed state, and the load starts to drop sharply. Accompanied by the shear failure of the web bar, a loud noise can be heard. At this time, the steel frame is judged to be completely destroyed and the loading is terminated. The failure position is in the midspan, part of the structure on both sides of the steel frame also entered the stage of strengthening, and the overall deformation is large.
- (3)
- Comparative analysis of test results
- I.
- The increase in the diameter of the main bar slightly enhances the ultimate bearing capacity of the steel frame. However, the steel utilization coefficient decreases by 14% (22–25), indicating that the four-bar double 8-shaped lattice girder has reached the optimal ratio of bearing capacity.
- II.
- The longitudinal and transverse webs with 22 mm main reinforcement can carry much smaller loads than the transverse webs with 22 mm main reinforcement. This shows that the arrangement of such webs is irrational. Not only is the force performance poorer, but the processing is also more time-consuming.Under the condition of the same steel consumption and the same diameter of the main bar (22 mm), the ultimate load of the four-bar double 8-shaped lattice girder with a transversely and longitudinally laid web bar is much smaller than that of the four-bar double 8-shaped lattice girder with a transversely laid web bar, indicating that the layout of the longitudinal and transverse web bar is unreasonable, the mechanical performance is poor, and the processing is more time-consuming.
- III.
- Shear failure occurred in the web bar of all steel frames, which indicates that the reinforcement of the steel frame is irrational. The strength of the web bar is not strong enough or the quality of the automatically machined welded joints does not meet the standard, which makes the steel frame damaged in advance.
- IV.
- In the test, the upper and lower main bars of all steel frames yielded successively. This shows that the diameter ratio of the upper and lower main bars is reasonable, and this kind of design scheme can be used as a reference in future designs.
3.4. I-Shaped Steel Rib
- (1)
- Failure mode
- (2)
- Displacement–load relationship
- I.
- When the applied load is small, the whole steel frame is in the elastic stage, and the displacement of each measuring point is linearly related to the applied load. At this time, the overall stability of the steel frame is very strong and the stress on each part is relatively uniform.
- II.
- As the load increases, the midspan of the steel frame first enters the strengthening stage, and the deformation gradually increases. The midspan displacement is no longer linear with the applied load, the displacement in each loading stage begins to increase, and the growth rate of the midspan displacement is greater than that of the left and right spans. At this time, the overall stability of the steel frame begins to weaken and the stress distributions are no longer uniform, especially in the midspan area where the original arch becomes horizontal, but the steel frame can still withstand the external load.
- III.
- When the applied load reaches the limit, the midspan area is in a state of inclination toward the side, the load starts to drop sharply, and the loading is terminated. The failure position of the steel frame is in the midspan, there is a tendency for torsional failure, and the overall deformation is large.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- A set of laboratory loading and measurement platforms for testing the steel arch of tunnel primary lining was developed, and the steel utilization coefficient that can scientifically evaluate the bearing efficiency of various steel arches was proposed. The coefficient provides a simple and reasonable quantitative method to evaluate the mechanical performance and economy of various types of tunnel lining structures.
- (2)
- The steel utilization coefficient of the I-shaped steel rib is higher than that of all kinds of lattice girders. When the shotcrete is not sprayed or solidified, the bare arch bears most of the surrounding rock pressure. However, considering that the combination of the I-shaped steel rib and concrete is not as good as that of a lattice girder, it is preferable to adopt a lattice girder in the case of small early deformation of surrounding rock.
- (3)
- For the lattice girders, the test results show that the diameter ratio of the main reinforcement and the abdominal reinforcement of the grille should be optimized, so as to make the force distribution of the main reinforcement and the abdominal reinforcement more uniform. The diameter ratio of the upper main bar to the lower main bar should be increased, and the diameter of the web bar can be appropriately increased. The steel frame with horizontally laid web bars has better mechanical performance under the same steel consumption.
- (4)
- Under the condition of the optimal combination of the diameter of the main bar and the web bar, the steel utilization coefficients of the three types of lattice girders are, in descending order, three-bar W-shaped lattice girder, four-bar W-shaped lattice girder, and four-bar double 8-shaped lattice girder. The steel utilization coefficient of the three-bar W-shaped lattice girder is the largest, and its steel consumption is the most economical under the same load-bearing capacity requirements. The three-bar W-shaped lattice girder is a form of steel frame that is worth applying and popularizing in highway tunnel primary lining.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, J.; Tan, Z. On the Interaction Mechanism of the Primary Support and Rock Mass in a Loess Tunnel with a Large Section. Mod. Tunn. Technol. 2013, 50, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, Z.; Yu, Y.; Wang, M.; Wang, M. Comparative tests on section steel and steel grid for loess tunnels with large section. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2009, 31, 628–633. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X. Optimization and Application of Support Scheme for Tunnel with High In-situ Stress in Ningchan. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 248, 03004. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, W.; Chen, J.; Luo, Y.; Chen, L.; Shi, Z.; Wu, Y. Deformation Behaviors and Mechanical Mechanisms of Double Primary Linings for Large-Span Tunnels in Squeezing Rock. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2021, 54, 2291–2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.; Fang, Q.; Zhang, D. Mechanical analysis of circular tunnels supported by steel sets embedded in primary linings. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. Inc. Trenchless Technol. Res. 2013, 37, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smaniotto, S.; Neuner, M.; Cordes, T.; Hofstetter, G. Experimental study of a wet mix shotcrete for primary tunnel linings—Part II: Shrinkage, creep, thermal and hygral behavior of shotcrete. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2022, 267, 108410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Cai, Y.; Fang, Y.; Lai, J.; Han, H.; Liu, J.; Lei, H.; Kong, X. Local buckling characteristic of hollow π-type steel-concrete composite support in hilly-gully region of loess tunnel. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 143, 106828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Embaby, K.; Naggar, M.; Sharnouby, M.E. Performance of large-span arched soil–steel structures under soil loading. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 172, 108884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Su, J.; Xu, Y.; Min, B. Experimental and numerical investigation the effects of insufficient concrete thickness on the damage behaviour of multi-arch tunnels. Structures 2021, 33, 2628–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Liu, B. Intelligent information-based construction in tunnel engineering based on the GA and CCGPR coupled algorithm. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 88, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Yao, C.; Luo, W.; He, C.; Sun, M.; Wang, E.; Yuan, F. Deformations and damages of tunnels subjected to strike-slip faulting: Effects of tectonic stress and cross-sectional shape. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 160, 108159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Lai, H.; Liu, Y.; Hong, Q.; Li, Z. Analysis and treatments of primary support failure in large-span tunnel under a soft-hard interbedded surrounding rock mass. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 156, 107755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Han, T.; Baek, J.; Kang, Y. Evaluation of the Structural Performance of the Tetragonal Lattice Girder. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2012, 13, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Huang, M.; Zhang, X.; Li, Z.; Peng, X. Experimental and numerical investigation on bearing capacity of circumferential joint of new spatial steel tubular grid arch in mined tunnel. Symmetry 2020, 12, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Yu, C.; Wang, X.; Ding, W.; Zhang, Q. Parameter optimization of corrugated steel initial support structure of mountain tunnel based on sensitivity analysis. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 741, 012077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Li, N. Influence of continuous rainfall on surrounding rock-initial support system of shallow decomposed-rock tunnel. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 61, 1751–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.L.; Chen, F.B.; Fang, Q. Study on mechanical characteristics and applicability of primary lining used in tunnel. Eng. Mech. 2014, 31, 78–84. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Qiu, W.; Zhao, X.; Rai, P.; Ai, X.; Wang, H. Experimental and numerical investigation on overbreak control considering the influence of initial support in tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 115, 104017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Tian, S. Experimental study of mechanical characteristics of support system for weak surrounding rock of deep tunnels. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2011, 30, 1663–1670. [Google Scholar]
- Song, C.; He, W.; Fei, M. Study on mechanical characteristics of support system for Shallow-buried Single-Arch subway station in rock stratum. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2022, 124, 104447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, K. Experimental study on the application of heat-treated high-strength lattice girder in tunnel engineering. Symmetry 2019, 11, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nomikos, P.P.; Sofianos, A.I.; Sakkas, K.M.; Choumanidis, D.; Delendas, S. Nonlinear simulation of lattice girder segment tests. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 38, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, H.; Zhu, H.; Huang, C.; Yan, Z.; Cai, Y.; Ding, W. Study on Selection of Section-steel and Grid-steel in Primary Support System of Tunnel. Chin. J. Undergr. Space Eng. 2007, 3, 258–262. [Google Scholar]
Design Institutes | Lanes | Rock Grade | Piecewise Form | Type | Steel per Frame (kg) | Size (cm) | Diameter of Main Reinforcement/Web Reinforcement/Stirrup | Lining Thickness/Longitudinal Spacing (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATCDI-1 | Two | IVb | 3I/2II/2III | F-W | 458.5 | 50/20/15 | Φ22/Φ12/Φ12 | 22/90 |
IVd | 436.9 | 50/16/11 | 18/100 | |||||
IVd | 413.8 | |||||||
ATCDI-2 | Two | IV | 5A + 2B | F-W | 432.2 | 37/15/15 | Φ22/Φ10/Φ6 | 22/100 |
FCPDI | Two | IV | 1I/6II/1III/1IV | F-W | 461.8 | 20/18/12 | Φ25/Φ14/None | 18/100 |
ZJIC-1 | Two | IV | 5A + 2B | F-D8 | 442.0 | 40/14/14 | Φ22/Φ12/None | 20/100 |
IV | 439.2 | |||||||
IV | 439.7 | 20/120 | ||||||
ZJIC-2 | Two | IV (SA4b) | 5A + 2B | F-D8 | 467.0 | 40/14/14 | Φ22/Φ16/None | 20/100 |
ZJIC-3 | Three | IV (SA4a) | 3I/2II/2III | F-D8 | 704.7 | 40/16/16 | Φ25/Φ16/None | 22/100 |
IV (SA4b) | 691.3 | 22/120 | ||||||
CHC | Two | IVa | 3A + 2B | F-D8 | 551.0 | 30/16/16 | Φ22/Φ14/Φ10 | 22/100 |
IVb | 544.2 | |||||||
CSHC | Two | IVb | 3A + 2B | F-W | 372.8 | 39/16/16 | Φ20/Φ10/Φ8 | 22/100 |
IVc | 360.2 | 22/120 | ||||||
CREE | Two | IVd | 3I/2II/2III | F-W | 615.5 | 50/20/15 | Φ25/Φ12/Φ12 | 22/100 |
Form | D1 (mm) | D2 (mm) | D3 (mm) | Members | Number | Others | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Three-bar W-shaped lattice girder | 25 | 22 | 12 | 2 | LG-3W-12-1 LG-3W-12-2 | Diameter of web bar 12 mm | |
2 | 25 | 22 | 10 | 1 | LG-3W-10-1 | Diameter of web bar 10 mm | ||
3 | 25 | 22 | 14 | 1 | LG-3W-14-1 | Diameter of web bar 14 mm | ||
4 | Four-bar W-shaped lattice girder | 22 | 22 | 12 | 2 | LG-4W-12-1 LG-4W-12-2 | Diameter of web bar 12 mm | |
5 | 22 | 22 | 10 | 1 | LG-4W-10-1 | Diameter of web bar 10 mm | ||
6 | 22 | 22 | 14 | 1 | LG-4W-14-1 | Diameter of web bar 14 mm | ||
7 | Four-bar double 8-shaped lattice girder | 22 | 22 | 12 | 2 | LG-4B-22-1 LG-4B-22-2 | Diameter of main bar 22 mm Transversely laid web bar | |
8 | 22 | 22 | 12 | 1 | LG-ZH4B-22-1 | Transversely and longitudinally laid web bar | ||
9 | 25 | 25 | 12 | 1 | LG-4B-25-1 | Diameter of main bar 25 mm | ||
10 | I-shaped steel rib | h = 140 | b = 80 | d = 5.5 | t=9.1 | 1 | XG-1 |
Number | Ultimate Load/kN | Displacement at Failure/mm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Center | Lower Center | Upper Left | Lower Left | Upper Right | Lower Right | ||
LG-3W-12-1 | 25.77 | 49.86 | 46.75 | 27.96 | 24.97 | 28.65 | 25.85 |
LG-3W-12-2 | 25.41 | 48.52 | 45.32 | 29.53 | 27.13 | 29.94 | 27.35 |
LG-3W-10-1 | 23.56 | 44.96 | 38.54 | 25.02 | 20.85 | 22.3 | 19.68 |
LG-3W-14-1 | 27.63 | 50.11 | 47.06 | 27.86 | 25.91 | 27.35 | 25.31 |
Type of Lattice Girder | Web Bar Dia.10 mm | Web Bar Dia.12 mm | Web Bar Dia.14 mm |
---|---|---|---|
Weight of steel frame/kg | 48.38 | 50.47 | 52.93 |
Ultimate load/kN | 23.56 | 25.59 | 27.63 |
Steel utilization coefficient | 0.487 | 0.507 | 0.522 |
Number | Ultimate Load/kN | Displacement at Failure/mm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Center | Lower Center | Upper Left | Lower Left | Upper Right | Lower Right | ||
LG-4W-12-1 | 29.23 | 64.21 | 61.15 | 33.66 | 31.06 | 33.16 | 30.21 |
LG-4W-12-2 | 29.87 | 58.14 | 54.91 | 30.79 | 26.93 | 31.63 | 27.71 |
LG-4W-10-1 | 24.65 | 59.03 | 55.16 | 32.22 | 27.56 | 33.43 | 28.63 |
LG-4W-14-1 | 31.26 | 57.56 | 53.58 | 31.36 | 28.52 | 30.47 | 27.18 |
Type of Lattice Girder | Web Bar Dia.10 mm | Web Bar Dia.12 mm | Web Bar Dia.14 mm |
---|---|---|---|
Weight of steel frame/kg | 57.72 | 59.81 | 62.28 |
Ultimate load/kN | 24.65 | 29.55 | 31.26 |
Steel utilization coefficient | 0.427 | 0.494 | 0.502 |
Number | Ultimate Load/kN | Displacement at Failure/mm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Center | Lower Center | Upper Left | Lower Left | Upper Right | Lower Right | ||
LG-4B-22-1 | 28.62 | 114.78 | 105.96 | 57.18 | 51.38 | 58.91 | 52.87 |
LG-4B-22-2 | 27.11 | 111.31 | 101.86 | 54.62 | 48.95 | 53.59 | 47.94 |
LG-ZH4B-22-1 | 24.92 | 103.02 | 86.82 | 56.99 | 49.39 | 54.11 | 48.45 |
LG-4B-25-1 | 28.95 | 108.64 | 93.54 | 43.57 | 40.17 | 44.97 | 41.63 |
Type of Lattice Girder | Transversely Laid Web Bar/Main Bar Dia.22 mm | Transversely Laid Web Bar/Main Bar Dia.25 mm | Transversely and Longitudinally Laid Web Bar/Main Bar Dia.22 mm |
---|---|---|---|
Weight of steel frame/kg | 65.18 | 79.00 | 65.18 |
Ultimate load/kN | 27.87 | 28.95 | 24.92 |
Steel utilization coefficient | 0.428 | 0.366 | 0.382 |
Number | Ultimate Load/kN | Displacement at Failure/mm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Center | Lower Center | Upper Left | Lower Left | Upper Right | Lower Right | ||
XG-1 | 32.05 | 79.82 | 72.34 | 31.05 | 28.52 | 43.69 | 40.61 |
Type of Steel Rib | XG-1 |
---|---|
Weight of steel frame/kg | 50.93 |
Ultimate load/kN | 32.05 |
Steel utilization coefficient | 0.629 |
Type of Steel Frame | Three-Bar W-Shaped Lattice Girder | Four-Bar W-Shaped Lattice Girder | Four-Bar Double 8-Shaped Lattice Girder | I-Shaped Steel Rib |
---|---|---|---|---|
Weight of test section/kg | 52.93 | 62.28 | 65.18 | 50.93 |
Ultimate load of test section/kN | 27.63 | 31.26 | 27.87 | 32.05 |
Steel utilization coefficient | 0.522 | 0.502 | 0.428 | 0.629 |
Weight of the whole steel frame/kg | 547.9 | 646.0 | 655.0 | 603.5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, C.; Zhuang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Zheng, G.; Zheng, Y.; Li, W.; Xue, C.; Guo, H.; Fang, Y. Experimental Study of the Mechanical Behavior of a Steel Arch Structure Used in the Main Lining of a Highway Tunnel. Buildings 2024, 14, 2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082571
Li C, Zhuang Y, Lu Y, Zheng G, Zheng Y, Li W, Xue C, Guo H, Fang Y. Experimental Study of the Mechanical Behavior of a Steel Arch Structure Used in the Main Lining of a Highway Tunnel. Buildings. 2024; 14(8):2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082571
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Changjun, Yizhou Zhuang, Yuquan Lu, Guoping Zheng, Yunhui Zheng, Wenhao Li, Chenbo Xue, Hongyu Guo, and Yuchao Fang. 2024. "Experimental Study of the Mechanical Behavior of a Steel Arch Structure Used in the Main Lining of a Highway Tunnel" Buildings 14, no. 8: 2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082571