Unascertained Measure Evaluation Method for Large Deformation Hazard Analysis of Squeezing Tunnel
-
摘要:
为解决复杂艰险山区深埋隧道软岩大变形风险评价中的不确定性难题，提出了基于组合赋权法和未确知测度理论的挤压性隧道大变形评价方法.通过系统研究高地应力深埋隧道大变形特征，建立了由7个核心指标组成的评价体系，包括岩石抗压强度、弹性模量、最大主应力、围强度应力比、地质构造、围岩级别、地下水.通过采用距离函数耦合层次分析法（AHP）与熵权法，构建了主客观组合赋权模型，实现了挤压性隧道大变形风险评价指标的科学权重分配.基于未确知测度理论，建立了挤压性隧道大变形危险性评价模型，通过构建线性单指标测度函数，生成测度评价矩阵，并采用置信度准则实现大变形危险性等级判定.将该模型用于成兰铁路杨家坪隧道，雅鲁藏布江某铁路令达拿、朗镇二号、江木拉隧道等4座典型软岩大变形隧道，并与实际大变形结果进行对比.研究结果表明：该模型的评价结果与现场实际结果总体吻合，证实了该模型用于复杂山区深埋隧道大变形风险评价的有效性及准确度，为复杂山区深埋隧道大变形风险评价开辟了新途径.
Abstract:Aiming at the many uncertain factors in the large deformation risk assessment of deep lying tunnel in complex mountainous area, this study proposes a novel evaluation methodology for squeezing tunnel large deformations based on combined weighting method and unascertained measure theory. Through systematic investigation of large deformation characteristics in high-stress deep-buried tunnels, an evaluation system comprising seven core indicators was established, including the rock compressive strength, elastic modulus, maximum principal stress, surrounding strength-stress ratio, geological structure, surrounding rock grade, and groundwater. By employing a distance function to integrate the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with entropy weighting method, it developed a combined subjective-objective weighting model that achieves scientifically validated weight allocation for risk assessment indicators of squeezing tunnel large deformations. Based on unascertained measure theory, this study establishes a risk assessment model for large deformations in squeezing tunnels. The model employs linear single-index measure functions to construct a measurement evaluation matrix, and utilizes confidence criterion for determining deformation risk levels. The model was applied to four representative soft-rock tunnels with large deformations: Yangjiaping Tunnel on the Chengdu-Lanzhou Railway, and Lingdana, Langzhen No.2, and Jiangmula Tunnels on the Southeastern Tibet Railway. Comparative analysis with actual deformation data demonstrated strong agreement between model predictions and field measurements. These results validate the model's effectiveness and accuracy for risk assessment of large deformations in complex mountainous deep-buried tunnels, establishing a novel approach for such geotechnical evaluations.
-
图 1 挤压性隧道大变形危险性评价的技术路线
Fig. 1. Technical approach for risk assessment of squeezing tunnel large deformations
图 3 杨家坪隧道施工期大变形灾变特征分析
Fig. 3. Analysis of large deformation catastrophe characteristics during Yangjiaping tunnel excavation
图 4 杨家坪隧道轴线三向主应力云图
Fig. 4. Three-dimensional principal stress contour map along the Yangjiaping tunnel
图 5 杨家坪隧道轴向地应力场特征
Fig. 5. Characteristics of axial in-situ stress field in Yangjiaping tunnel
图 6 杨家坪隧道实测与模拟应力对比
Fig. 6. Comparison between the measured and simulated results of Yangjiaping tunnel
图 7 隧道大变形多准则评估框架
Fig. 7. Multicriteria assessment system for large deformation of tunnel
表 1 典型挤压性隧道大变形案例关键参数统计
Table 1. Statistical analysis of key parameters in typical squeezing tunnel large deformation cases
隧道名称 隧道长度(m) 最大埋深(m) 地层岩性 地质构造 围岩/岩石强度(MPa) 最大主应力(MPa) 最大水平收敛(mm) 最大拱顶沉降(mm) 大变形破坏特征 参考文献 青藏铁路新关角隧道 32 645 1 100 泥质片岩、灰岩等 隧址区断裂构造发育，穿越11条大断裂层 5 25.3 460 505 隧道底部隆起和两侧边墙挤出，且变形持续时间长 张旭珍(2011) 滇藏铁路云南段中义隧道 14 745 1 240 凝灰岩、玄武岩 隧址区位于青藏高原东南缘之川滇断块的西部边界断裂带 片理化玄武岩: 0.573 25.1 868 100 轻微-中等-强烈大变形，初期支护严重损坏, 多个地段需换拱 李贵民(2018) 成兰铁路茂县隧道 9 913 1 650 千枚岩等 穿越龙门山后山活动断裂带核心部位 3.4 44.7 950.5 462.4 轻微-中等-强烈大变形 郭小龙等(2022) 成兰铁路杨家坪隧道 10 010 1 656 千枚岩等 位于龙门山后山断裂带，区域性大断裂、活动断裂发育，地震活动较为频繁 1.95 27.5 810 510 轻微-中等大变形，变形增长持续时间长，时间效应显著，岩层陡倾导致隧道水平收敛大于拱顶沉降 周航等(2022a) 藏东南铁路朗镇二号隧道 2 640 305 千枚岩、板岩、砂岩、砾岩等 隧址区左侧穿越雅鲁藏布江断裂带(F1-5-3)和堆巴断层，节理和褶皱发育 千枚岩：3.3~3.9 10.6 - - 轻微大变形，拱部、拱腰和掌子面等易坍塌、掉块，围岩稳定性很差 张广泽等(2021) 藏东南铁路江木拉隧道 8 697 1 493 千枚岩夹板岩、石英砂岩等 受区域雅鲁藏布江断裂带(F1-5-3)等地质构造影响极严重，节理发育 岩石原地抗拉强度: 9.2~11.4 33.6 - - 轻微-中等大变形，混凝土开裂掉块、初期支护变形侵限等 张广泽等(2021) 藏东南铁路令达拿隧道 2 510 322 炭质千枚岩、砂岩等 受区域雅鲁藏布江断裂带(F1-5-3)影响严重，节理发育 千枚岩: 3.3~3.9 10.2 - - 轻微-中等-强烈大变形，围岩与支护结构破坏特征明显 张广泽等(2021) 兰新铁路乌鞘岭隧道 20 050 1 100 千枚岩夹板岩、砂岩、泥岩等 穿越4条大断层构成的“挤压构造带”，沿线褶皱、断裂带发育 0.75~2.0 33.0 1 034 1 053 受挤压性断层影响，围岩稳定性差，变形量大，初期变形量快 李国良和朱永全(2008) 兰新铁路大梁隧道 6 550 780 板岩、砂岩、灰岩 板理发育，多呈薄层状，且褶曲发育，穿越100 m断层带 岩石强度:
14~2025.1 552 632 轻微-中等大变形，底板隆起、初支开裂，辅助正洞出口方向开裂 戴永浩等(2015) 兰渝铁路木寨岭隧道 19 060 600 板岩、泥岩、断层压碎岩 节理裂隙及揉皱等地质构造现象发育 5.92 27.2 1 081 1 712 轻微-中等-强烈大变形，初期支护喷射混凝土开裂严重, 拱部钢架部分折断, 钢架连接板处张开 王永刚等(2020) 兰渝铁路两水隧道 4 922 346 炭质千枚岩、千枚岩等 隧址区穿越武都断裂带、白龙江复背斜等 2.9 6.5~11.3 543 762 拱顶严重下沉, 边墙内挤严重, 喷混凝土长段落的开裂、压碎、剥落, 钢拱架严重扭曲变形 赵福善(2014) 兰渝铁路毛羽山隧道 8 503 700 板岩、板岩夹灰岩, 局部夹炭质板岩 受构造作用影响，褶皱断裂和地质构造发育 泥质板岩强度：5.6~17.7 21.3 1 200 540 围岩变形量大，变形速率快，变形持续时间长，围岩变形在空间分布不均匀、不对称，具有显著的流变效应 何磊等(2011) 兰渝铁路新城子隧道 9 164 769 薄层状炭质板岩、千枚岩等 隧址区靠近断裂带，构造发育，地震活动强烈 15.0 33.8 900 356 围岩变形量大，变形持续时间长，导致二衬受到强烈挤压产生不同程度的开裂、剥落 李国良等(2022) 云桂铁路对门山隧道 9 578 680 泥岩、砂质泥岩、钙质粉砂岩 以新裂构造为主, 褶曲构造较为发育 钙质粉砂岩强度: 19.6 13.8 533 427 喷射的混凝土出现龟裂及斜裂缝等现象，支护呈现向明显的膨胀变形, 同时隧底有隆起迹象 张广泽等(2021) 宜万铁路堡镇隧道 11 600 630 炭质页岩 穿越仙女山断层 2.9 16.0 1 250 640 隧道变形量大、变形发展快、持续时间长，且时空效应明显 田四明(2013) 北同蒲铁路雁门关隧道 14 085 820 斜长片麻岩、花岗片麻岩 隧址区位于吕梁-太行断块至宁武-静乐块坳的北东部边缘 4.1 16.0 - 731 初期支护开裂、脱落，钢架扭曲变形等 叶少敏(2014) 奥地利阿尔贝格公路隧道 13 980 740 千枚岩、片麻岩、绿泥石片岩等 - 1.2~1.9 实测地应力: 13.0 700 600 隧道围岩变形量大，变形速率快，变形持续时间长 李天斌等(2016)；周航等(2021) 奥地利陶恩隧道 6 400 1 000 千枚岩、片麻岩、绿泥石片岩 - 1.7 27.0 500 1 200 隧道围岩变形量大，变形速率快，变形持续时间长 李天斌等(2016)；周航等(2021) 都汶公路龙溪隧道 3 691 840 泥岩、砂岩、花岗闪长岩等 隧址区穿越龙门山构造带中段 岩石强度: 9.5~26.0 25.0~27.0 432 1 471 轻微-中等大变形，喷射混凝土开裂、剥落，钢拱架扭曲变形，局部出现鼓出、塌方等强烈大变形现象 李春林等(2009) 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 各指标与大变形等级的映射关系
Table 2. Mapping relationship between indicators and large deformation grades
大变形级别 最大主应力σmax(MPa) 岩石抗压强度σc(MPa) 围强度应力比σb/σmax 弹性模量E(Gpa) 围岩级别K 地质构造S 地下水W 无大变形 < 20 > 30 > 0.50 > 2.0 < 4 < 4 < 2 轻微大变形(Ⅰ级) 20~30 15~30 0.25~0.50 1.5~2.0 4~5 4~5 2~3 中等大变形(Ⅱ级) 30~45 5~15 0.15~0.25 1.0~1.5 5~6 5~6 3~6 强烈大变形(Ⅲ级) > 45 < 5 < 0.15 < 1.0 > 6 > 6 > 6
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 杨家坪隧道岩石力学基本参数
Table 3. Basic parameters of rock mechanics of Yangjiaping tunnel
岩性 密度ρ(g/cm3) 纵波速度vp(m/s) 饱和单轴抗压强度σc(MPa) 弹性模量E(GPa) 泊松比ν 绿泥石千枚岩 2.71 3 781 12.25 2.01 0.28 2.74 4 021 16.32 1.30 0.25 2.77 3 802 20.61 2.19 0.22 平均值 2.74 3 868 16.39 1.83 0.25 炭质千枚岩 2.72 3 869 13.22 1.82 0.25 2.74 4 117 21.37 2.05 0.21 2.73 4 225 33.62 1.59 0.26 平均值 2.73 4 070 22.73 1.82 0.24
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 杨家坪隧道CLTL-YJP-01#钻孔地应力测试结果
Table 4. In-situ stress measurement results of borehole CLTL-YJP-01# in Yangjiaping tunnel
埋深(m) 最大水平主应力SH(MPa) 垂直主应力Sv(MPa) 最小水平主应力Sh(MPa) 最大水平主应力方向 340.6 15.73 9.20 8.52 343.6 17.22 9.28 9.57 NE32° 345.3 20.42 9.32 11.10 347.4 21.31 9.38 11.42 NE44° 349.8 23.37 9.44 11.99 NE61° 350.6 22.35 9.47 11.53 NE55°
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 杨家坪隧道岩体与断层力学参数
Table 5. Mechanical parameters of rock mass and faults in Yangjiaping tunnel
岩体类型 弹性模量E(GPa) 泊松比v 密度ρ(kg/m3) 绿泥石千枚岩 1.83 0.24 2 770 千佛山斜冲断层 1.10 0.31 2 300 绿泥石千枚岩夹石英脉 2.25 0.23 2 750 千枚岩夹灰质千枚岩、泥质灰岩 2.53 0.22 2 750
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 杨家坪隧道典型区段各评价指标取值
Table 6. Values of evaluation indices for typical sections in Yangjiaping tunnel
样本序号 隧道里程 岩性 围岩级别 评价指标 σmax σc σb/σmax E K S W 1 DK111+770~DK112+282 绿泥石千枚岩 Ⅳ 24.80 16.39 0.22 1.83 4.5 5.0 2.5 2 DK113+150~DK113+360 绿泥石千枚岩 Ⅳ 14.85 16.39 0.36 1.83 4.5 5.5 5.5 3 DK113+360~DK113+690 绿泥石千枚岩 Ⅳ 19.84 16.39 0.27 1.83 4.5 5.5 5.5 4 DK115+092~DK115+302 绿泥石千枚岩 Ⅳ 29.82 16.39 0.30 1.83 4.5 3.5 1.5 5 DK115+450~DK115+650 绿泥石千枚岩 Ⅴ 19.65 16.39 0.28 1.83 5.5 5.5 5.5 6 DK116+356~DK116+506 绿泥石千枚岩夹石英脉 Ⅳ 14.40 20.35 0.47 2.25 4.5 5.0 5.5 7 DK116+506~DK116+783 绿泥石千枚岩夹石英脉 Ⅳ 20.16 20.35 0.33 2.25 4.5 5.0 1.5 8 DK116+783~DK117+250 千枚岩 Ⅳ 28.40 15.53 0.18 1.31 4.5 5.5 4.5 9 DK117+346~DK117+401 绿泥石千枚岩夹石英脉 Ⅴ 26.12 15.92 0.33 2.01 5.5 4.5 4.5 10 DK119+910~DK119+970 绿泥石千枚岩夹石英脉 Ⅳ 26.37 18.35 0.23 2.25 4.5 5.0 2.5 11 DK123+060~DK123+600 绢云千枚岩夹灰岩、砂岩 Ⅳ 16.45 21.78 0.44 2.53 4.5 5.0 2.5
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 挤压性隧道大变形各评价指标权重
Table 7. Weight distribution of evaluation indicators for squeezing tunnel large deformations
评价指标 σmax σc σb/σmax E K S W 主观权重wi(AHP) 0.052 0.164 0.157 0.164 0.274 0.052 0.137 客观权重wj(EW) 0.309 0.013 0.149 0.057 0.131 0.059 0.282 组合赋权权重w 0.151 0.106 0.154 0.123 0.219 0.055 0.192
下载: 导出CSV
表 8 杨家坪隧道典型区段大变形危险性评价结果
Table 8. Risk assessment of large deformations in typical sections of Yangjiaping tunnel
序号 隧道里程 综合未确知测度 实际大变形等级 C1 C2 C3 C4 评价结果 1 DK111+770~DK112+282 0.045 0.721 0.217 0.016 轻微 轻微 2 DK113+150~DK113+360 0.190 0.501 0.180 0.128 轻微 轻微 3 DK113+360~DK113+690 0.190 0.418 0.263 0.128 轻微 轻微 4 DK115+092~DK115+302 0.286 0.535 0.179 0.000 轻微 轻微 5 DK115+450~DK115+650 0.190 0.204 0.478 0.128 中等 中等 6 DK116+356~DK116+506 0.386 0.376 0.110 0.128 轻微 轻微 7 DK116+506~DK116+783 0.461 0.456 0.083 0.000 轻微 轻微 8 DK116+783~DK117+250 0.000 0.334 0.606 0.060 中等 轻微 9 DK117+346~DK117+401 0.123 0.353 0.524 0.000 中等 中等 10 DK119+910~DK119+970 0.123 0.670 0.207 0.000 轻微 轻微 11 DK123+060~DK123+600 0.350 0.616 0.034 0.000 轻微 轻微
下载: 导出CSV
表 9 单线隧道不同大变形等级的工程支护对策原则
Table 9. Principles of engineering support countermeasures for different large deformation grades of single-line tunnels
大变形等级 断面
形式超前支护 喷砼 钢架形式 锚杆形式 二次衬砌 轻微 椭圆形轮廓 拱部中管棚或插小导管为主，可设置D60或D76中管棚超前支护，环向间距0.3~0.4 m，必要时可在中管棚间设置D42超前小导管 喷C30早高强纤维砼，27 cm厚 全环工20b型钢钢架，
1.0 m/榀拱墙低预应力树脂卷锚杆(4.0 m) 间距1.2×0.8(环x纵) 45 cm厚钢筋砼 中等 喷C30早高强钢纤维砼，25 cm厚 全环HW175型钢，
0.8 m/榀拱墙低预应力树脂卷锚杆(4.0 m) 间距1.2×0.8(环x纵) 50 cm厚钢筋砼 强烈 圆形轮廓 拱部大管棚或中管棚为主，可设置D89或D108
大管棚，D60或D76中管棚超前支护，环向间距0.3~0.4 m，必要时可在大管棚或中管棚间设置D42超前小导管喷C30早高强钢纤维砼，27 cm+21 cm厚 双层全环HW200/HW175型钢分次施作，0.6 m/榀 拱部长短结合，短锚杆为树脂(药包)锚杆(4 m)+长锚杆为让压式锚杆(10 m)；隧底φ32中空锚杆(10 m-潜孔钻) 间距1.2×0.6(环x纵) 55~60 cm厚钢筋砼 必要时增加边墙预应力锚索(15 m) 间距1.5×1.5(环x纵)
下载: 导出CSV
表 10 双线隧道不同大变形等级的工程支护对策原则
Table 10. Principles of engineering support countermeasures for different large deformation grades of double-track tunnels
大变形等级 断面形式 超前支护 喷砼 钢架形式 锚杆形式 二次衬砌 注浆加固 轻微 优化仰拱曲率 拱部中管棚或插小导管为主，可设置D60或D76中管棚超前支护，环向间距0.3~0.4 m，必要时可在中管棚间设置D42超前小导管 喷C30早高强纤维砼，
29 cm厚全环工22a型钢钢架，1.0 m/榀 拱部低预应力树脂卷锚杆(4.5 m)+边墙低预应力树脂卷锚杆(6 m) 间距1.2×0.8(环x纵) 50 cm厚钢筋砼.仰拱55 cm / 中等 喷C30早高强钢纤维砼，
27 cm厚全环HW200型钢，
0.8 m/榀拱墙低预应力树脂卷锚杆(6.0 m)+ 隧底φ32中空锚杆(6 m-潜孔钻) 间距1.2×0.8(环x纵) 55 cm厚钢筋砼.仰拱60 cm / 强烈 近圆轮廓或圆形 拱部大管棚或中管棚为主，可设置D89或D108大管棚，D60或D76中管棚超前支护，环向间距0.3~0.4 m，必要时可在大管棚或中管棚间设置D42超前小导管 喷C30早高强钢纤维砼，27 cm+23 cm厚 双层全环HW200/HW200型钢分次施作，0.6 m/榀 长短结合，短锚杆为树脂(药包)锚杆(4 m)+长锚杆为让压式锚杆(12 m)；隧底φ32中空锚杆(10 m-潜孔钻) 间距1.2×0.6(环x纵) 全环65 cm 径向注浆 必要时增加边墙预应力锚索(18 m) 间距1.5×1.5(环x纵)
下载: 导出CSV
表 11 雅鲁藏布江某铁路典型软岩隧道工程大变形数据
Table 11. Large deformation monitoring data for typical soft rock tunnels of a railway in Yarlung Zangbo River area
隧道工程 里程 σmax σc σb/σmax E K S W 大变形等级 令达拿隧道 DK241+525~DK241+665 0.14 10.20 4.40 0.63 5.5 6.5 4.5 强烈 朗镇二号隧道 DK261+190~DK261+820 0.39 8.36 6.80 1.29 4.5 4.5 4.5 轻微 江木拉隧道 DK270+410~DK270+525 0.20 30.62 11.36 1.31 5.5 6.5 2.5 中等
下载: 导出CSV
表 12 雅鲁藏布江某铁路典型软岩隧道大变形危险性评价结果
Table 12. Risk assessment of large deformations in typical soft rock tunnels of a railway in Yarlung Zangbo River area
隧道工程 里程 综合未确知测度 实际大变形等级 C1 C2 C3 C4 评价结果 令达拿隧道 DK241+525~DK241+665 0.033 0.000 0.328 0.639 强烈 强烈 朗镇二号隧道 DK261+190~DK261+820 0.033 0.640 0.199 0.128 轻微 轻微 江木拉隧道 DK270+410~DK270+525 0.000 0.183 0.739 0.078 中等 中等
下载: 导出CSV
-
Anagnostou, G., 1993. A Model for Swelling Rock in Tunnelling. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 26(4): 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027115 Chen, X. H., Zhou, H., Zhang, G. Z., et al., 2022. Efficiency Coefficient Method for Large Deformation Risk Assessment of Mountain Tunnel. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 39(8): 59-65 (in Chinese with English abstract). Chen, Z. J., 1982. The Mechanical Problems for the Long-Term Stability of Underground Galleries. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 1(1): 1-20 (in Chinese with English abstract). Dai, Y. H., Chen, W. Z., Tian, H. M., et al., 2015. Study on Large Deformation of Soft Rock in Daliang Tunnel and Its Supporting Scheme. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 34(S2): 4149-4156 (in Chinese with English abstract). Dong, J. X., Gong, X. Y., Mi, J., et al., 2024. Structure and Application of SHF Classification Method for Surrounding Rock of Sandy Dolomite Tunnel. Earth Science, 49(8): 2813-2825(in Chinese with English abstract). Dong, L. J., Peng, G. J., Fu, Y. H., et al., 2008. Unascertained Measurement Classifying Model of Goaf Collapse Prediction. Journal of Coal Science and Engineering (China), 14(2): 221-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12404-008-0046-9 Fan, J. H., Chen, Z. C., Xia, S. G., 2013. Risk Assessment of Large Deformation in Soft Rock Tunnel Construction by Mining Method. Railway Engineering, 53(7): 52-56 (in Chinese with English abstract). Feng, X. D., Jimenez, R., 2015. Predicting Tunnel Squeezing with Incomplete Data Using Bayesian Networks. Engineering Geology, 195: 214-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.017 Guo, X. L., Tan, Z. S., Yu, Y., 2022. Study on Large Deformation Control Technology and Deformation Control Criteria for Soft Rock Tunnels of Chengdu-Lanzhou Railway. Journal of the China Railway Society, 44(3): 86-104 (in Chinese with English abstract). He, L., Yang, B., Wang, G. F., et al., 2011. Research on Construction Dynamic Control and Optimization of a Tunnel in Soft Rock under High In-Situ Stresses. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 48(2): 44-48 (in Chinese with English abstract). He, M. C., Ren, S. L., Tao, Z. G., 2022. Disaster Prevention and Control Methods for Deep Buried Tunnels. Journal of Engineering Geology, 30(6): 1777-1797 (in Chinese with English abstract). He, M. C., Yan, Y. S., Wang, T. L., et al., 1999. The Probability and Classification of Soft Rock. In: He, M. C., ed., The Current Conditions and Prospects of the Soft Rock Engineering Technology in 21st Century. China Coal Industry Publishing House, Beijing(in Chinese). Hoek, E., Marinos, P., 2000. Predicting Tunnel Squeezing Problems in Weak Heterogenous Rock Masses. Tunnels and Tunnelling International, 32(11): 45-51. Li, C. L., Li, T. B., Chen, L. W., et al., 2009. Analysis on the Genetic Mechanism of the Large Deformations of Surrounding Rocks on the Test Section in Longxi Left Tunnel. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 46(5): 46-50 (in Chinese with English abstract). Li, G. L., Li, N., Ding, Y. J., et al., 2022. Study on Identification and Design Method of Squeezing Surrounding Rock Tunnel. Journal of the China Railway Society, 44(3): 24-38 (in Chinese with English abstract). Li, G. L., Zhu, Y. Q., 2008. Control Technology for Large Deformation of Highland Stressed Weak Rock in Wushaoling Tunnel. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 25(3): 54-59 (in Chinese with English abstract). Li, G. M., 2018. Construction Control Technology for Large Deformation Section of Basalt Tunnel on Lijiang-Shangri-La Railway. Tunnel Construction, 38(S1): 167-174 (in Chinese with English abstract). Li, H. B., Li, X., Wang, S. J., et al., 2024. Cross Project Conversion Relationship of Key Parameters of TBM Rock Breaking. Earth Science, 49(5): 1722-1735 (in Chinese with English abstract). Li, T. B., Meng, L. B., Wang, L. S., 2016. High Stress Tunnel Stability and Large Deformation Disaster Prevention. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese). Liu, W., Chang, X. W., Zhou, H., et al., 2024. Analysis of In-Situ Stress Characteristics and Large Deformation Risk for a Deep and Long Tunnel in the Western Mountainous Area. High Speed Railway Technology, 15(6): 98-103 (in Chinese with English abstract). Liu, Z. C., Zhu, Y. Q., Li, W. J., et al., 2008. Mechanism and Classification Criterion for Large Deformation of Squeezing Ground Tunnels. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 30(5): 690-697 (in Chinese with English abstract). Meng, L. B., Li, H. Y., Li, T. B., et al., 2024. Study on Explosive Rockburst Mechanism Based on Two-Dimensional Meso-Fracture Model. Earth Science, 49(8): 2789-2798 (in Chinese with English abstract). Saari, K., 1982. Analysis of Plastic Deformation (Squeezing) of Layers Intersecting Tunnels and Shafts in Rock (Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Saaty, T. L., 1979. Applications of Analytical Hierarchies. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 21(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4754(79)90101-0 Shi, X. Z., Zhou, J., Dong, L., et al., 2010. Application of Unascertained Measurement Model to Prediction of Classification of Rockburst Intensity. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 29(S1): 2720-2726 (in Chinese with English abstract). Singh, B., Jethwa, J. L., Dube, A. K., et al., 1992. Correlation between Observed Support Pressure and Rock Mass Quality. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 7(1): 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(92)90114-W Song, Z., Jiang, L. W., Du, Y. B., et al., 2016. Analysis on Characteristic and Formation Mechanism of Larger Deformation for the Tunnel of Chengdu-Lanzhou Railway. Journal of Engineering Geology, 24(S1): 11-16. (in Chinese with English abstract). Tan, Z. S., Zhao, J. P., Zhang, B. J., 2024. Mechanism and Control of Large Deformations in Super-Deep Soft Rock Tunnels: A Case Study of Haba Snow Mountain Tunnel on Lijiang-Shangri-La Line of Yunnan-Xizang Railway. Tunnel Construction, 44(12): 2307-2315 (in Chinese with English abstract). Terzaghi, K., Proctor, R. V., White, T. L., 1946. Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports with an Introduction to Tunnel Geology. Commerical Shearing and Stamping Company, Ohio. Tian, S. M., 2013. Deformation Mechanism of Black Batt with High Stress in Baozhen Tunnel. Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University, 37(1): 21-26 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wang, G. Y., 1990. Unascertamed Information and Its Mathematical Treatment. Journal of Harbin University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, (4): 1-9 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wang, K. Y., Shang, Y. J., He, W. T., et al., 2015. Prediction of Surrounding Rock Deformation in Deep Highway Tunnel. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 11(5): 1164-1174 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wang, W. D., Yan, W., Gao, H., 2020. Evaluation of Vehicle Base Location Planning Based on Unascertained Measure. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 51(5): 1431-1440 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wang, Y. G., Ding, W. Q., Liu, Z. Q., et al., 2020. Classification Standard of Large Deformation and Construction Time of Second Lining in Muzhailing Tunnel. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 16(4): 1116-1122 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wood, A. M. M., 1972. Tunnels for Roads and Motorways. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 5(1-2): 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.qjeg.1972.005.01.12 Yan, X. H., Guo, C. B., Liu, Z. B., et al., 2022. Physical Simulation Experiment of Granite Rockburst in a Deep-Buried Tunnel in Kangding County, Sichuan Province, China. Earth Science, 47(6): 2081-2093 (in Chinese with English abstract). Ye, S. M., 2014. Deformation Control Technique for the Yanmenguan Tunnel. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 31(8): 68-71, 77 (in Chinese with English abstract). Yi, Z. Y., Long, Z. C., Jiang, S. B., 2012. Application of Grey Variable Weight Clustering Method in Large Deformation Risk Assessment of Jicha Road Tunnel. Hunan Communication Science and Technology, 38(1): 118-120 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhang, C., Wang, Q., Chen, J. P., et al., 2011. Evaluation of Debris Flow Risk in Jinsha River Based on Combined Weight Process. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 32(3): 831-836 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhang, G. Z., Deng, J. H., Wang, D., et al., 2021. Mechanism and Classification of Tectonic-Induced Large Deformation of Soft Rock Tunnels. Advanced Engineering Sciences, 53(1): 1-12 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhang, X. Z., 2011. Large Deformation Treatment Technology of Guanjiao Tunnel. Journal of Shijiazhuang Tiedao University (Natural Science), 24(1): 17-20 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhang, Y., Zheng, X. S., Cao, H. Y., et al., 2025. Tunnel Collapse Risk Analysis Based on Attribute Mathematical Theory and TSP Geological Forecast Technique. Journal of Earth Science, 36(6): 2830-2835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-025-2045-9 Zhao, F. S., 2014. Technologies to Control Serious Deformation of Soft Rocks with High Ground Stress: Case Study on Liangshui Tunnel on Lanzhou-Chongqing Railway. Tunnel Construction, 34(6): 546-553 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhou, H., Chen, S. K., Li, H. R., et al., 2021. Rockburst Prediction for Hard Rock and Deep-Lying Long Tunnels Based on the Entropy Weight Ideal Point Method and Geostress Field Inversion: A Case Study of the Sangzhuling Tunnel. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 80(5): 3885-3902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02175-9 Zhou, H., Chen, S. K., Liu, T., et al., 2021. Combination Weight and Ideal Point Method Model for Risk Evaluation on Squeezing Large Deformation. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 52(10): 3647-3658 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhou, H., Chen, S. K., Liu, T., et al., 2022a. Large Deformation Mechanism of Soft Rock Surrounding Tunnel Deep Buried in Complex Mountainous: A Case Study of Yangjiaping Tunnel. Journal of Engineering Geology, 30(3): 852-862 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhou, H., Liao, X., Chen, S. K., et al., 2022b. Rockburst Risk Assessment of Deep Lying Tunnels Based on Combination Weight and Unascertained Measure Theory: A Case Study of Sangzhuling Tunnel on Sichuan-Tibet Traffic Corridor. Earth Science, 47(6): 2130-2148 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhou, H., Xie, R. Q., Song, Z., et al., 2024. Large Deformation Characteristics and Genetic Analysis of High Geostress Altered Granite Tunnel. Railway Technical Standard (Chinese & English), 6(1): 29-35 (in Chinese with English abstract). 陈兴海, 周航, 张广泽, 等, 2022. 山岭隧道大变形危险性评价的功效系数法研究. 铁道工程学报, 39(8): 59-65. 陈宗基, 1982. 地下巷道长期稳定性的力学问题. 岩石力学与工程学报, 1(1): 1-20. 戴永浩, 陈卫忠, 田洪铭, 等, 2015. 大梁隧道软岩大变形及其支护方案研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 34(S2): 4149-4156. 董家兴, 龚欣月, 米健, 等, 2024. 砂化白云岩隧洞围岩分类方法SHF构建及应用. 地球科学, 49(8): 2813-2825. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2023.059 范建海, 陈志超, 夏述光, 2013. 软岩隧道矿山法施工大变形风险评估. 铁道建筑, 53(7): 52-56. 郭小龙, 谭忠盛, 喻渝, 2022. 成兰铁路软岩隧道大变形控制技术及变形控制基准研究. 铁道学报, 44(3): 86-104. 何磊, 杨斌, 王更峰, 等, 2011. 高地应力软岩隧道施工动态控制与优化研究. 现代隧道技术, 48(2): 44-48. 何满潮, 任树林, 陶志刚, 2022. 深埋隧道灾变防控方法. 工程地质学报, 30(6): 1777-1797. 何满潮, 晏玉书, 王同良, 等. 1999. 软岩工程技术现状及展望. 见: 何满朝, 编, 世纪之交软岩工程技术现状与展望. 北京: 煤炭工业出版社. 李春林, 李天斌, 陈礼伟, 等, 2009. 龙溪隧道左线试验段围岩大变形成因机制分析. 现代隧道技术, 46(5): 46-50. 李贵民, 2018. 丽香铁路玄武岩隧道大变形段施工控制技术. 隧道建设(中英文), 38(增刊1): 167-174. 李国良, 李宁, 丁彦杰, 等, 2022. 挤压性围岩隧道判识及设计方法研究. 铁道学报, 44(3): 24-38. 李国良, 朱永全, 2008. 乌鞘岭隧道高地应力软弱围岩大变形控制技术. 铁道工程学报, 25(3): 54-59. 李海波, 李旭, 王双敬, 等, 2024. TBM破岩关键参数跨工程转换关系. 地球科学, 49(5): 1722-1735. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2022.331 李天斌, 孟陆波, 王兰生, 2016. 高地应力隧道稳定性及岩爆、大变形灾害防治. 北京: 科学出版社. 刘伟, 常兴旺, 周航, 等, 2024. 西部山区某深埋长大隧道地应力特征及大变形危险性分析. 高速铁路技术, 15(6): 98-103. 刘志春, 朱永全, 李文江, 等, 2008. 挤压性围岩隧道大变形机理及分级标准研究. 岩土工程学报, 30(5): 690-697. 孟陆波, 李昊禹, 李天斌, 等, 2024. 基于二维细观裂隙模型的爆喷型岩爆机制. 地球科学, 49(8): 2789-2798. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2023.071 史秀志, 周健, 董蕾, 等, 2010. 未确知测度模型在岩爆烈度分级预测中的应用. 岩石力学与工程学报, 29(增刊1): 2720-2726. 宋章, 蒋良文, 杜宇本, 等. 2016. 成兰铁路软岩隧道大变形特征及成因机制探析. 工程地质学报, 24(增刊1): 11-16. 谭忠盛, 赵金鹏, 张宝瑾, 2024. 超大埋深软岩隧道大变形机理及控制技术研究: 以滇藏铁路丽香线哈巴雪山隧道为例. 隧道建设(中英文), 44(12): 2307-2315. 田四明, 2013. 堡镇隧道高地应力炭质页岩的变形破坏机制. 北京交通大学学报, 37(1): 21-26. 王光远, 1990. 未确知信息及其数学处理. 哈尔滨建筑工程学院学报(4): 1-9. 王开洋, 尚彦军, 何万通, 等, 2015. 深埋公路隧道围岩大变形预测研究. 地下空间与工程学报, 11(5): 1164-1174. 王卫东, 颜文, 高华, 2020. 基于未确知测度的车辆基地选址规划评价. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 51(5): 1431-1440. 王永刚, 丁文其, 刘志强, 等, 2020. 木寨岭隧道大变形分级标准与支护时机研究. 地下空间与工程学报, 16(4): 1116-1122. 严孝海, 郭长宝, 刘造保, 等, 2022. 四川康定某深埋隧道花岗岩岩爆物理模拟实验研究. 地球科学, 47(6): 2081-2093. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2021.153 叶少敏, 2014. 雁门关隧道变形控制技术. 铁道工程学报, 31(8): 68-71, 77. 易震宇, 龙正聪, 蒋胜波, 2012. 灰色变权聚类法在吉茶路隧道大变形风险评估中的应用. 湖南交通科技, 38(1): 118-120. 张晨, 王清, 陈剑平, 等, 2011. 金沙江流域泥石流的组合赋权法危险度评价. 岩土力学, 32(3): 831-836. 张广泽, 邓建辉, 王栋, 等, 2021. 隧道围岩构造软岩大变形发生机理及分级方法. 工程科学与技术, 53(1): 1-12. 张旭珍, 2011. 关角隧道大变形处理技术. 石家庄铁道大学学报(自然科学版), 24(1): 17-20. 赵福善, 2014. 兰渝铁路两水隧道高地应力软岩大变形控制技术. 隧道建设, 34(6): 546-553. 周航, 陈仕阔, 刘彤, 等, 2021. 挤压性围岩大变形危险性评价的组合赋权-理想点模型. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 52(10): 3647-3658. 周航, 陈仕阔, 刘彤, 等, 2022a. 复杂山区深埋隧道软岩大变形机理研究: 以杨家坪隧道为例. 工程地质学报, 30(3): 852-862. 周航, 廖昕, 陈仕阔, 等, 2022b. 基于组合赋权和未确知测度的深埋隧道岩爆危险性评价: 以川藏交通廊道桑珠岭隧道为例. 地球科学, 47(6): 2130-2148. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2021.170 周航, 谢荣强, 宋章, 等, 2024. 高地应力蚀变花岗岩隧道大变形特征及成因分析. 铁道技术标准(中英文), 6(1): 29-35. -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 200
- HTML全文浏览量: 22
- PDF下载量: 36
- 被引次数: 0
