Comparative Study on Anti-Erosion Enhancement Technologies of Lining Concrete for Mountain Tunnels in Saline Soil Environment

doi:10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0214

Abstract

Abstract:

In the construction of tunnel engineering in saline soil environments of western China， the service conditions and construction practices for lining concrete are complex， posing significant challenges to both construction safety and durability. To identify the applicable scenarios of anti-erosion enhancement technologies， this study comprehensively evaluated the effects of environmental corrosion-resistance admixture and erosion inhibitor on the air permeability coefficient， carbonation depth， water penetration depth， water absorption， rapid chloride migration coefficient， and electric flux of tunnel lining concrete. The results show that the environmental corrosion-resistance admixture refines the capillary pore structure of concrete， significantly reduces the water penetration depth and air permeability coefficient， and improves sulfate corrosion resistance. The erosion inhibitor reduces the hydrophilicity of concrete， markedly decreasing the 0.5 h water absorption rate （by approximately 57%）， while significantly enhancing sulfate erosion resistance under dry-wet cycling and semi-immersion conditions. Comparing the two anti-erosion enhancement technologies， the environmental corrosion-resistance admixture is superior in improving concrete compactness， making it suitable for enhancing resistance to medium permeation under external water pressure， gas pressure， or an electric field. The erosion inhibitor is superior in improving concrete hydrophobicity， making it suitable for enhancing resistance to ion erosion under capillary adsorption conditions such as dry-wet cycling or semi-immersion. Considering the different service conditions and performance requirements of mountain tunnel linings in saline soil environments， it is recommended to adopt corresponding concrete anti-erosion enhancement technologies.

Key words: tunnel engineering, lining concrete, durability, environmental corrosion-resistance admixture, erosion inhibitor, enhancement technology

CLC Number:

TU528

WAN Guijun, GUO Zheng, LIU Chang, MU Song, DAI Jinpeng, LIU Rongxin, YANG Jing, WANG Xudong. Comparative Study on Anti-Erosion Enhancement Technologies of Lining Concrete for Mountain Tunnels in Saline Soil Environment[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3083-3091.

Figures/Tables 12

References 21

[1]	金之钧，龙胜祥，周雁，等. 中国南方膏盐岩分布特征［J］. 石油与天然气地质， 2006（5）： 571-583+593.
	JIN Z J， LONG S X， ZHOU Y， et al. A study on the distribution of saline-deposit in southern China［J］. Oil and Gas Geology， 2006（5）： 571-583+593 （in Chinese）.
[2]	LEI M F， PENG L M， SHI C H， et al. Experimental study on the damage mechanism of tunnel structure suffering from sulfate attack［J］. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology， 2013， 36： 5-13. DOI URL
[3]	LIU Z Q， ZHANG F Y， DENG D H， et al. Physical sulfate attack on concrete lining： a field case analysis［J］. Case Studies in Construction Materials， 2017， 6： 206-212. DOI URL
[4]	王海洋，赵树磊，陈　祥，等. 我国隧道瓦斯事故统计及影响因素分析［J］. 中国安全科学学报， 2021， 31（4）： 34-40. DOI
	WANG H Y， ZHAO S L， CHEN X， et al. Statistics and influencing factors analysis of tunnel gas accidents in China［J］. China Safety Science Journal， 2021， 31（4）： 34-40 （in Chinese）. DOI
[5]	马伟斌. 铁路山岭隧道钻爆法关键技术发展及展望［J］. 铁道学报， 2022， 44（3）： 64-85.
	MA W B. Development and prospect of key technology of drilling and blasting for railway mountain tunnels［J］. Journal of the China Railway Society， 2022， 44（3）： 64-85 （in Chinese）.
[6]	晏长根，欧运起，李富春，等. 钻爆法公路隧道防排水技术发展综述［J］. 公路交通科技， 2024， 41（6）： 156-164. DOI
	YAN C G， OU Y Q， LI F C， et al. Development review on waterproof and drainage technology for drill-and-blast highway tunnel［J］. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development， 2024， 41（6）： 156-164 （in Chinese）.
[7]	李　雷，唐新军，朱鹏飞，等. 高抗硫酸盐水泥混凝土抗硫酸盐、镁盐双重侵蚀性能初探［J］. 水利与建筑工程学报， 2016， 14（3）： 197-199+231.
	LI L， TANG X J， ZHU P F， et al. The performance of sulfate and magnesium resistance of high sulfate resistance concrete［J］. Journal of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering， 2016， 14（3）： 197-199+231 （in Chinese）.
[8]	张　普，齐冬有，王小可，等. 海水干湿循环作用下铁铝酸盐水泥混凝土的力学性能和微观性能研究［J］. 硅酸盐通报， 2025， 44（7）： 2429-2436.
	ZHANG P， QI D Y， WANG X K， et al. Mechanical and microscopic properties of ferroaluminate cement concrete under action of seawater dry-wet cycle［J］. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2025， 44（7）： 2429-2436 （in Chinese）. DOI
[9]	穆　松，郭　政，刘光严，等. 高浓度硫酸盐环境下桥梁桩基混凝土防腐技术［J］. 硅酸盐通报， 2021， 40（4）： 1213-1219.
	MU S， GUO Z， LIU G Y， et al. Anti-corrosion techniques of bridge pile foundation concrete in high-concentration sulfate environment［J］. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2021， 40（4）： 1213-1219 （in Chinese）.
[10]	AYAZ M， SULEIMAN G S A， ALTAF M， et al. Polymer and eco-friendly inhibitors for corrosion protection of reinforced concrete： a comprehensive review［J］. Journal of Building Engineering， 2026， 119： 115119. DOI URL
[11]	白国强，李晓文，卢　霄，等. 混凝土气密剂的制备与应用性能及其微观结构分析［J］. 新型建筑材料， 2018， 45（9）： 102-107.
	BAI G Q， LI X W， LU X， et al. The preparation and properties of airtight agent for concrete and its microstructure analysis［J］. New Building Materials， 2018， 45（9）： 102-107 （in Chinese）.
[12]	张进飞，马　麒，穆　松，等. 疏水性侵蚀抑制剂对水泥水化影响及作用机理分析［J］. 硅酸盐通报， 2024， 43（8）： 2768-2777.
	ZHANG J F， MA Q， MU S， et al. Effect and mechanism analysis of carboxylic acid type hydrophobic agent on cement hydration［J］. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2024， 43（8）： 2768-2777 （in Chinese）.
[13]	CAI J S， LIU J P， SHI L， et al. The influence of a newly organic inhibitor on corrosion resistance of reinforcing steel and concrete［C］// London： 37th Cement and Concrete Science Conference， 2017： 175-178.
[14]	ZHANG Y D， TANG Z P， LIU X Y， et al. Study on the resistance of concrete to high-concentration sulfate attack： a case study in jinyan bridge［J］. Materials， 2024， 17（14）： 3388. DOI URL
[15]	王明年，钟新樵，张开鑫，等. 瓦斯隧道运营通风技术研究［J］. 铁道学报， 1999， 21（2）： 67-71.
	WANG M N， ZHONG X Q， ZHANG K X， et al. Study on operation ventilation technology in gas tunnel［J］. Journal of the China Railway Society， 1999， 21（2）： 67-71 （in Chinese）.
[16]	JIANG X， MU S， GUO Z， et al. Effect of temperature on the physical salt attack of cement mortars under repeated partial immersion in sodium sulfate solution［J］. Materials， 2022， 15（18）： 6234. DOI URL
[17]	范传斌，邹　威，许晴爽. 两种离子侵蚀抑制剂对水泥水化过程及产物的影响［J］. 混凝土， 2022（5）： 93-97.
	FAN C B， ZOU W， XU Q S. Effects of two type erosion inhibitors on cement hydration and products［J］. Concrete， 2022（5）： 93-97 （in Chinese）.
[18]	颜　赫，周　莹，张黎明，等. 隧道衬砌混凝土抗溶蚀性能提升技术对比［J］. 混凝土， 2022（4）： 154-156+162.
	YAN H， ZHOU Y， ZHANG L M， et al. Technical comparison of improving the anti-corrosion performance of tunnel lining concrete［J］. Concrete， 2022（4）： 154-156+162 （in Chinese）.
[19]	SONG H W， KWON S J. Permeability characteristics of carbonated concrete considering capillary pore structure［J］. Cement and Concrete Research， 2007， 37（6）： 909-915. DOI URL
[20]	丁庆军，叶　强，刘　凯，等. 干湿循环条件下MgSO₄侵蚀对水泥-矿渣胶凝浆体微结构的影响［J］. 武汉理工大学学报， 2019， 41（7）： 34-42.
	DING Q J， YE Q， LIU K， et al. Effect of MgSO₄ attack on the microstructure of cement-slag cementitious pastes under dry-wet cycle［J］. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology， 2019， 41（7）： 34-42 （in Chinese）.
[21]	LV L N， HE Y J， HE M Q， et al. ²⁷Al MAS NMR studies on location of aluminum in substituted calcium silicate hydrate［J］. Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2017， 45（8）： 1096-1100.

Material	Mass fraction/%
Material	Al₂O₃	CaO	SiO₂	Fe₂O₃	MgO	SO₃	K₂O	Na₂O	TiO₂	LOI
Cement	6.587	58.323	19.743	3.872	1.752	3.447	0.845	0.241	0.298	3.660
Slag	15.938	39.012	28.814	0.495	10.211	2.180	0.397	0.401	0.603	1.280
Fly ash	33.116	6.986	45.123	7.980	0.984	1.378	1.114	0.382	1.415	0.570

Material	Mass fraction/%
Material	Al₂O₃	CaO	SiO₂	Fe₂O₃	MgO	SO₃	K₂O	Na₂O	TiO₂	LOI
Cement	6.587	58.323	19.743	3.872	1.752	3.447	0.845	0.241	0.298	3.660
Slag	15.938	39.012	28.814	0.495	10.211	2.180	0.397	0.401	0.603	1.280
Fly ash	33.116	6.986	45.123	7.980	0.984	1.378	1.114	0.382	1.415	0.570

Class	TB 10005—2010			JTG/T 3310—2019
Class	Intensity	Grade	Durability index	Intensity	Grade	Durability index
Chloride	L3	C50	D_{RCM，56 d}≤3×10^-12m²/s Passed electric charge （56 d）<1 000 C	Ⅳ-E	C50	D_{RCM，28 d}<4×10^-12m²/s Passed electric charge （56 d）<800 C
Chemical	H4	C50	—	Ⅵ-F	C50	—
Salt crystallization	Y4	C50	≥KS150	Ⅴ-F	C50	≥KS150

Class	TB 10005—2010			JTG/T 3310—2019
Class	Intensity	Grade	Durability index	Intensity	Grade	Durability index
Chloride	L3	C50	D_{RCM，56 d}≤3×10^-12m²/s Passed electric charge （56 d）<1 000 C	Ⅳ-E	C50	D_{RCM，28 d}<4×10^-12m²/s Passed electric charge （56 d）<800 C
Chemical	H4	C50	—	Ⅵ-F	C50	—
Salt crystallization	Y4	C50	≥KS150	Ⅴ-F	C50	≥KS150

Sample	Mix proportion/（kg·m^-3）
Sample	Cement	Fly ash	Slag	RMA	Sand	Gravel	Water	TIA	Polycarboxylate
JZC	315	90	45	—	721	1 082	157	—	5.4
TIAC	315	90	45	—	721	1 082	137	20	5.4
RMAC	315	45	45	45	721	1 082	157	—	5.4