High in-situ stress evaluation and disaster case analysis for the Sichuan–Tibet railway
-
摘要:
川藏铁路沿线高地应力问题突出，导致硬岩岩爆和软岩大变形等灾变现象频发，严重影响川藏铁路隧道建设。搜集川藏铁路雅林段沿线地应力实测数据366组以及川藏铁路沿线区域内28座隧道灾变案例，从应力分区角度刻画沿线地应力特征，梳理总结高地应力灾变案例，并对川藏铁路廊道沿线区域的高地应力特征进行评价。研究结果表明，川藏铁路雅林段所经过的B218、B219和B222应力分区，最大水平主应力（SH）和最小水平主应力（ Sh）随埋深（Z）增加而增大，埋深1000 m的SH和Sh范围分别为30.80~37.50 MPa和21.40~23.56 MPa，埋深2500 m的 SH和 Sh范围分别为69.80~90.00 MPa和48.40~56.56 MPa；其SH优势方向分别为北西西向、北西向和北东向，并与震源机制解结果基本一致，局部有所偏转。侧压力系数（kH/kh）普遍大于1，表明川藏铁路沿线主要受SH影响。各应力分区应力值在埋深
小于500 m时，主要深部范围表现为SH>垂直应力（SV）>Sh，表明该沿线地应力状态主要为走滑型；最大剪应力与平均应力的比值（μm）均集中在0.3附近，表明该沿线地应力积累水平较低。28个隧道灾变案例中（12个为硬岩岩爆、16个为软岩大变形），发生岩爆的隧道最小埋深为700 m，发生大变形的隧道最小埋深为275 m；其中有9座隧道地应力评价等级为高，19座隧道地应力等级评价为极高，表明高地应力是灾变频发的根本原因。通过对比各类隧道灾变判据与实际隧道灾变等级，得出相对适用于川藏铁路隧道岩爆预测和大变形预测的判据，为后续川藏铁路隧道建设提供了案例依据。研究结果为川藏铁路沿线区域的地应力状态分析与高地应力灾变防控提供了关键依据，对提升隧道工程安全性和施工效率具有重要工程指导意义。 Abstract:Objective The challenges posed by high in-situ stress along the newly constructed Sichuan–Tibet railway are significant, characterized by frequent catastrophic events such as rock bursts and large deformations in soft rocks, which substantially impact tunnel construction for the Sichuan–Tibet railway.
Method Based on 366 sets of in-situ stress measurement data from the Yalin section of the Sichuan–Tibet railway and 28 documented cases of tunnel catastrophes in the areas along the Sichuan–Tibet railway, this study analyzes the characteristics of in-situ stress along the route, categorizes the catastrophic events, and evaluates the high in-situ stress conditions of the Sichuan–Tibet railway.
Results In the B218, B219, and B222 stress divisions traversed by the Yalin section of the Sichuan–Tibet railway, the maximum (SH) and minimum (Sh) horizontal principal stresses increase with depth. Within a burial depth of 1000 m, SH and Sh range from 30.80–37.50 MPa and 21.40–23.56 MPa, respectively. At a burial depth of 2500 m, SH and Sh increase to 69.80–90.0 MPa and 48.40–56.56 MPa, respectively. The preferred orientations of SH are NWW, NW, and NE, consistent with focal mechanism solutions, albeit with some local deviations. The lateral pressure coefficient (kH/kh) is generally greater than 1, indicating that the Sichuan–Tibet railway is predominantly influenced by SH. Stress values in each stress division exhibit the pattern SH > SV > Sh, reflecting a strike-slip fault stress state in the deeper regions below 500 m burial depth. The stress accumulation level (μm) values for each stress division are concentrated around 0.3, suggesting a low regional stress accumulation level. Among the 28 documented tunnel catastrophe cases (12 involving rock bursts and 16 involving large deformations in soft rocks), the minimum burial depth for tunnels experiencing rock bursts is 700 m, while the minimum burial depth for tunnels experiencing large deformations in soft rocks is 275 m. Six tunnels are rated as under high stresses, and eight tunnels are rated as under extremely high stresses. High in-situ stress serves as the energy source and the fundamental cause of frequent catastrophes.
Conclusion Through comparing the actual grades of tunnel disasters, the most appropriate criterion for predicting rock burst and large deformations in Sichuan–Tibet railway tunnels is determined after comparison and selection. Therefore, they should be prioritized in the studies for the subsequent construction of Sichuan–Tibet railway tunnels as a reference basis. [Significance] The research findings offer crucial evidence for the analysis of in-situ stress states and the prevention and control of high in-situ stress disasters in the regions along the Sichuan–Tibet railway, and possess significant engineering guiding significance for enhancing the safety of tunnel engineering and construction efficiency.
-
Key words:
- Sichuan–Tibet railway /
- high in-situ stress /
- stress division /
- rock burst /
- large deformation
-
-
表 1 各应力分区主应力值拟合结果
Table 1. Fitting results of principal stress values in different stress division
应力分区 主应力
类型拟合关系式 应力增加梯度/
(MPa/100 m)埋深500 m
应力值/ MPa埋深1000 m
应力值 /MPa埋深1500 m
应力值 /MPa埋深2000 m
应力值 /MPa埋深2500 m
应力值 /MPaB218 SH SH=0.032Z+1.50 3.20 17.50 33.50 49.50 65.50 81.50 Sh Sh=0.022Z+1.56 2.20 12.56 23.56 34.56 45.56 56.56 B219 SH SH=0.035Z+2.50 3.50 20.00 37.50 55.00 72.50 90.00 Sh Sh=0.022Z+1.56 2.20 12.56 23.56 34.56 45.56 56.56 B222 SH SH=0.026Z+4.80 2.60 17.80 30.80 43.80 56.80 69.80 Sh Sh=0.018Z+3.40 1.80 12.40 21.40 30.40 39.40 48.40 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 灾变等级划分
Table 2. Classification of catastrophe levels
灾变等级 灾变现象及工程影响 非常严重 岩爆：强烈岩爆段较多，岩爆时间具有延续性并向深部扩展，严重威胁施工人员、设备安全，施工效率影响很大
大变形：严重大变形段较多，变形速率很快，变形量很大，支护措施受损非常严重严重 岩爆：强烈岩爆段多，岩爆持续时间较长，威胁施工人员、设备安全，施工效率影响较大
大变形：严重大变形段多，变形速率较快，变形量较大，支护措施受损严重中等 岩爆：中等岩爆段多，岩爆持续时间长，对施工人员、设备安全有一定威胁，施工效率影响大
大变形：中等大变形段多，变形速率快，变形量大，支护措施受损轻微 岩爆：轻微岩爆段多，岩爆零星间断，施工效率影响小
大变形：轻微大变形段多，变形速率缓慢，围岩轻微挤出，支护措施未受损无 无灾变或缺省
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 川藏铁路灾变案例及其地应力等级评价
Table 3. Evaluation of Sichuan-Tibet railway catastrophe cases and their in-situ stress levels
隧道名称 灾变类型 隧道总长/m 隧道最大
埋深/m最大地应力/
MPa岩石单轴抗压
强度/MPa地层岩性 灾变等级 地应力等级
评价结果桑珠岭隧道 岩爆 16499 1500 43.80 160.00 闪长岩、花岗岩 非常严重 极高 巴玉隧道 岩爆 13047 2080 58.88 170.00 花岗岩 非常严重 极高 岗木拉隧道 岩爆 11660 1814 51.96 95.00 闪长岩、片麻岩 轻微 极高 祝拉岗隧道 岩爆 7684 1237 36.96 115.00 花岗岩 轻微 高 达嘎拉隧道 岩爆 17324 1760 50.56 115.00 花岗岩 轻微 高 布喀木隧道 岩爆 9240 1381 40.71 100.00 片麻岩 轻微 高 孜拉山隧道 岩爆 30370 1480 43.28 120.00 片麻岩、花岗岩 非常严重 高 色季拉山隧道 岩爆 38014 1680 48.48 156.20 花岗岩、闪长岩及片麻岩 非常严重 高 易贡隧道 岩爆 42488 1400 41.20 160.00 片麻岩、花岗岩 轻微 高 折多山隧道 岩爆 20870 1251 46.29 160.00 黑云母花岗岩 轻微 高 藏噶隧道 大变形 8775 778 25.03 8.00 蚀变花岗岩 非常严重 极高 巴杰若隧道 大变形 2105 334 13.48 8.00 千枚岩 严重 极高 令达拿隧道 大变形 2515 1200 36.00 8.00~12.00 千枚岩 严重 极高 藏日拉隧道 大变形 3964 392 14.99 8.00 千枚岩、板岩 严重 极高 朗镇二号隧道 大变形 2652 305 12.73 8.00~12.00 千枚岩、砂岩 中等 极高 江木拉隧道 大变形 8700 1493 43.62 8.00 板岩、千枚岩 中等 极高 米林隧道 大变形 11560 1200 36.00 17.40 砂质泥岩、英安岩 中等 极高 东嘎山隧道 大变形 3722 840 26.64 12.00 千枚岩、砂岩 轻微 极高 康定2号隧道 大变形 20193 1215 45.03 8.00 粉砂质板岩 非常严重 极高 高尔寺山隧道 大变形 18820 1125 41.88 4.00 板岩、千枚岩 严重 极高 海子山隧道 大变形 33090 1230 45.55 10.00 板岩 严重 极高 多吉隧道 大变形 24188 1845 52.77 20.00 砂岩、板岩 严重 极高 多木格隧道 大变形 15695 1600 46.40 20.00 砂岩、灰岩 中等 极高
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 川藏铁路廊道邻近公路隧道灾变案例及其地应力等级评价
Table 4. Evaluation of adjacent highway tunnel in Sichuan–Tibet railway corridor catastrophe cases and their in-situ stress levels
隧道名称 灾变类型 隧道总长/m 隧道最大埋深/m 最大地应力/MPa 岩石单轴抗压强度/MPa 地层岩性 灾变等级 地应力等级评价结果 二郎山隧道（雅康高速） 岩爆 13459 1500 49.50 180.00 花岗岩 轻微 高 雀儿山隧道（G317） 岩爆 7083 700 23.00 90.00 花岗岩 轻微 高 得荣1号隧道（G215） 大变形 2100 275 12.13 16.60 强风化云母片岩 中等 极高 德达隧道（G318） 大变形 659 700 27.00 2.50 炭质千枚岩 中等 极高 矮拉山隧道(G317) 大变形 4810 1200 36.00 4.60 软弱凝灰岩 轻微 极高
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 岩爆判据方法及分级
Table 5. Rock burst criterion methods and classifications
判据指标 岩爆等级 《铁路隧道设计规范》
（国家铁路局，2016 ）宫凤强判据
(宫凤强等，2022)张镜剑判据
(张镜剑和傅冰骏，2008)徐林生判据
(徐林生和王兰生，1999)Rc/σ1>7 Rc+8σ1≤220 σ1/Rc<0.15 σθ/Rc<0.3 无岩爆 4<Rc/σ1<7 220≤Rc+8σ1≤320 0.15<σ1/Rc<0.2 0.3≤σθ/Rc<0.5 轻微岩爆 2<Rc/σ1<4 320≤Rc+8σ1≤540 0.2<σ1/Rc<0.4 0.5≤σθ/Rc<0.7 中等岩爆 1<Rc/σ1<2 540≤Rc+8σ1≤730 σ1/Rc >0.4 σθ/Rc≥0.7 严重岩爆 Rc/σ1<1 Rc+8σ1≥730 非常严重岩爆 注：σ1为最大主应力，σ3为最小主应力，此次分析中取σ1=SH；Rc为岩石单轴抗压轻度，使用软件Roclab进行估算；σθ为洞壁最大切向应力，可由σ1、σ3计算得出（张士安等，2024）。
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 各岩爆判据评价结果及对比
Table 6. Evaluation results and comparison of various rock burst criteria
岩爆隧道 判据指标 判据方法及结果 实际岩爆等级 Rc/σ1 Rc+8σ1 σ1/Rc σθ/Rc 《铁路隧道
设计规范》
（国家铁路局，2016 ）宫凤强判据
(宫凤强等，2022)张镜剑判据
(张镜剑和傅冰骏，2008)徐林生判据
(徐林生和王兰生，1999)桑珠岭隧道 3.20 490.40 0.31 0.72 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 强烈岩爆 非常严重岩爆 巴玉隧道 2.38 611.04 0.42 0.97 中等岩爆 严重岩爆 高岩爆 强烈岩爆 非常严重岩爆 岗木拉隧道 4.62 655.71 0.22 0.50 轻微岩爆 严重岩爆 中等岩爆 轻微岩爆 轻微岩爆 祝拉岗隧道 4.87 475.70 0.21 0.47 轻微岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 轻微岩爆 轻微岩爆 达嘎拉隧道 4.75 644.48 0.21 0.49 轻微岩爆 严重岩爆 中等岩爆 轻微岩爆 轻微岩爆 布喀木隧道 5.90 565.65 0.17 0.39 轻微岩爆 严重岩爆 轻微岩爆 轻微岩爆 轻微岩爆 孜拉山隧道 2.77 466.24 0.36 0.83 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 强烈岩爆 非常严重岩爆 色季拉山隧道 3.22 544.04 0.31 0.72 中等岩爆 严重岩爆 严重岩爆 强烈岩爆 非常严重岩爆 易贡隧道 3.88 489.60 0.26 0.59 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 折多山隧道 3.46 530.28 0.29 0.72 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 严重岩爆 严重岩爆 二郎山隧道 3.64 576.00 0.28 0.63 中等岩爆 严重岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 雀儿山隧道 3.91 274.00 0.26 0.59 中等岩爆 轻微岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 中等岩爆 注：σ1为最大主应力，σ3为最小主应力，此次分析中取σ1=SH；Rc为岩石单轴抗压轻度，使用软件Roclab进行估算；σθ为洞壁最大切向应力，可由σ1、σ3计算得出（张士安等，2024）。
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 大变形判据方法及分级
Table 7. Criteria methods and classifications for large deformation
判据指标 大变形等级 刘志春判据（刘志春等，2008） Jethwa判据（Jethwa et al.，1984） Goel判据（Goel et al.，1996） 丁秀丽判据（丁秀丽等，2023） Rcm/σ0>0.5 Rcm/p0>2.0 ε<2% ε<2.5% 无大变形 0.25<Rcm/σ0<0.5 0.8<Rcm/p0<2.0 2%<ε<4% 轻微大变形 0.15<Rcm/σ0<0.25 0.4<Rcm/p0<0.8 4%<ε<5% 2.5%<ε<5% 中等大变形 Rcm/σ0<0.15 Rcm/p0<0.4 5%<ε<7% 5%<ε<10% 严重大变形 ε>7% ε>10% 非常严重大变形 注：Rcm为岩体单轴抗压强度，可使用软件Roclab进行估算；σ0为初始地应力，此次分析中取σ0=SV；p0为原地应力，此次分析中取3SH–Sh（王成虎等，2011），ε为围岩相对变形量。
下载: 导出CSV
表 8 各大变形判据评价结果及对比
Table 8. Evaluation results and comparison of various large deformation criteria
大变形隧道 判据指标 判据方法及结果 实际大变形等级 Rcm/p0 Rcm/σ0 ε/% 刘志春判据
（刘志春等，2008）Jethwa判据
（Jethwa et al.，1984）Goel判据
（Goel et al.，1996）丁秀丽判据
（丁秀丽等，2023）藏噶隧道 0.05 0.14 10.84 严重大变形 严重大变形 非常严重大变形 非常严重大变形 非常严重大变形 巴杰若隧道 0.05 0.17 6.96 中等大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 令达拿隧道 0.06 0.16 8.09 中等大变形 严重大变形 非常严重大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 藏日拉隧道 0.06 0.19 5.40 中等大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 朗镇二号隧道 0.07 0.25 3.27 中等大变形 严重大变形 轻微大变形 中等大变形 中等大变形 江木拉隧道 0.08 0.20 4.89 中等大变形 严重大变形 中等大变形 中等大变形 中等大变形 米林隧道 0.10 0.25 3.16 中等大变形 严重大变形 轻微大变形 中等大变形 中等大变形 东嘎山隧道 0.20 0.54 0.69 轻微大变形 严重大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 康定2号隧道 0.07 0.25 3.24 严重大变形 严重大变形 轻微大变形 中等大变形 中等大变形 高尔寺山隧道 0.04 0.13 11.11 严重大变形 严重大变形 非常严重大变形 非常严重大变形 非常严重大变形 海子山隧道 0.09 0.31 2.12 严重大变形 严重大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 多吉隧道 0.16 0.41 1.20 中等大变形 中等大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 多木格隧道 0.19 0.47 0.90 中等大变形 中等大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 得荣1号隧道 0.58 2.28 0.04 无大变形 无大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 轻微大变形 德达隧道 0.04 0.13 11.01 严重大变形 严重大变形 非常严重大变形 非常严重大变形 非常严重大变形 矮拉山隧道 0.06 0.14 9.56 严重大变形 严重大变形 非常严重大变形 严重大变形 严重大变形 注：Rcm为岩体单轴抗压强度，可使用软件Roclab进行估算；σ0为初始地应力，此次分析中取σ0=SV；p0为原地应力，此次分析中取3SH–Sh（王成虎等，2011），ε为围岩相对变形量。
下载: 导出CSV
表 9 川藏铁路沿线区域实测地应力值与预测值对比分析
Table 9. Comparative analysis of measured and predicted in-situ stress values along the Sichuan–Tibet railway region
隧道名称 隧道最大埋深/m 地层岩性 SH实测值/MPa SH预测值/MPa 预测准确度 拉月隧道 2080 闪长岩、片麻岩 58.88 52.63~66.92 一致 折多山隧道 1124 黑云母花岗岩、石英砂岩 34.02 30.13~41.93 一致 色季拉山隧道 1406 花岗岩、闪长岩及片麻岩 41.36 37.37~49.87 一致 鲁朗隧道 1470 花岗岩、片麻岩 43.02 39.71~52.76 一致 岗木拉隧道 1814 闪长岩、片麻岩 51.96 47.51~61.31 一致 祝拉岗隧道 1237 花岗岩 36.96 32.10~44.08 一致 达嘎拉隧道 1760 花岗岩 50.56 47.88~61.66 一致 布喀木隧道 1381 片麻岩 40.71 36.60~44.50 一致 通麦隧道 1107 片麻岩 45.52 31.86~39.70 低判
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] CHANG S P, 2021. Engineering geological study on route selection of Tongmai to Lulang section of Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Tunnel Construction, 41(6): 988. (in Chinese with English abstract
[2] CHEN X Q, 2022. Influence of fault fracture zone on initial in-situ stress field in Tongmai tunnel of Sichuan-Tibet traffic corridor[J]. Earth Science, 47(6): 2120-2129. (in Chinese with English abstract
[3] CHEN Z C, 2017. The rock burst prediction and prevention measure of Lalin railway gneiss tunnel[J]. Shanxi Architecture, 43(14): 165-166. (in Chinese)
[4] CHENG G, GONG L, YU J W, et al., 2020. Study on large deformation characteristics and construction control technology in high altitude slate tunnel[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 16(S2): 744-751. (in Chinese with English abstract
[5] DING L, ZHONG D L, 2013. Evolution of the East Himalayan tectonic syntaxis since the collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates[J]. Chinese Journal of Geology, 48(2): 317-333. (in Chinese with English abstract
[6] DING X L, ZHANG Y T, HUANG S L, et al., 2023. Large deformation mechanism of surrounding rock masses of tunnels, prediction method of squeezing large deformation and its application[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 42(3): 521-544. (in Chinese with English abstract
[7] FAN Y L, CAO J W, YU S, et al., 2023. Prediction and analysis on large deformation of surrounding rocks in the Muzhailing Tunnel of the Weiyuan–Wudu Expressway under high in-situ stress[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 29(6): 786-800. (in Chinese with English abstract
[8] FU T T, 2022. Comparative Study on Excavation Methods of Langzhen No. 2 Soft Rock Tunnel[D]. Lhasa: Tibet University. (in Chinese with English abstract
[9] GAO Y, 2020. Quality control of initial support construction for large deformation of weak surrounding rock[J]. Construction Machinery & Maintenance(4): 94-95. (in Chinese)
[10] GOEL R K, JETHWA J L, DHAR B B, 1996. Effect of tunnel size on support pressure[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 33(7): 749-755.
[11] GONG F Q, DAI J H, WANG M Y, et al., 2022. “Strength & stress” coupling criterion and its grading standard for high geostress[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 30(6): 1893-1913. (in Chinese with English abstract
[12] GONG H J, ZHAO G P, YAN J, et al., 2021. Characteristics and influencing factors of large deformation of Ailashan tunnel of Sichuan-Tibet highway[J]. Tunnel Construction, 41(S2): 129-136. (in Chinese with English abstract
[13] GONG J H, SUN X, 2019. Reinforcement technology for high-steep natural slope at tunnel portal of Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Sichuan Architecture, 39(3): 78-80. (in Chinese)
[14] GU L X, 2017. Study on deformation control technology of high stress soft rock large deformation tunnel[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing Jiaotong University. (in Chinese with English abstract
[15] JETHWA J L, SINGH B, SINGH B, et al. , 1984. Estimation of ultimate rock pressure for tunnel linings under squeezing rock conditions—A new approach[C]//Proceedings of the design and performance of underground excavations. Cambridge: ISRM Symposium: 231-238.
[16] LIAO X, LÜ G J, CHEN S K, et al., 2024. Study on distribution characteristics and influencing factors of in-situ stress field in Gonjo region of eastern Tibet[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 39(3): 938-950. (in Chinese with English abstract
[17] LIU Z C, ZHU Y Q, LI W J, et al., 2008. Mechanism and classification criterion for large deformation of squeezing ground tunnels[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 30(5): 690-697. (in Chinese with English abstract
[18] LIU Z Y, WANG C H, XU X, et al., 2017. Slip tendency analysis of the mid-segment of Tan-Lu fault belt based on stress measurements[J]. Modern Geology, 31(4): 869-876. (in Chinese with English abstract
[19] MIAO Y W, 2018. Construction technology research on large deformation of Zangga tunnel surrounding rock[J]. High Speed Railway Technology, 9(S2): 127-133. (in Chinese)
[20] National Railway Administration, 2016. Code for Design of Railway Tunnels: TB 10003—2016 [S]. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House. (in Chinese)
[21] National Railway Administration, 2022. Code for Investigation of Adverse Geology in Railway Engineering: TB/T 10027—2022 [S]. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House. (in Chinese)
[22] REN Y, WANG D, LI T B, et al., 2021. In-situ geostress characteristics and engineering effect in Ya’an-Xinduqiao section of Sichuan—Tibet railway[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 40(1): 65-76. (in Chinese with English abstract
[23] SUN W F, GUO C B, ZHANG G Z, et al., 2021. In-situ stress measurement of Guodashan tunnel horizontal borehole in West Sichuan and the engineering significance[J]. Geoscience, 35(1): 126-136. (in Chinese with English abstract
[24] TAN C X, ZHANG P, WANG J M, et al., 2023. Considerations on the application of in-situ stress measurement and real-time monitoring in deep underground engineering in strong tectonic activity region[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 29(6): 757-769. (in Chinese with English abstract
[25] TAO Q, 2023. Stability control of high geo-stress soft rock tunnels considering rock expansion effect: a case study of Milin tunnel[J]. Tunnel Construction, 43(8): 1327-1337. (in Chinese with English abstract
[26] TAO W, 2016. Characteristics of rockburst and prevention measures in New Erlangshan Tunnel[J]. Sichuan Architecture, 36(2): 264-265. (in Chinese with English abstract
[27] TIAN C Y, LAN H X, ZHANG N, et al., 2022. Quantitative prediction of rockburst risk in sejila tunel of one railway[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 30(3): 621-634, doi: 10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2022-0113
[28] TIAN S M, WANG W, TANG G R, et al., 2021. Study on countermeasures for major unfavorable geological issues of tunnels on Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Tunnel Construction, 41(5): 697-712. (in Chinese with English abstract
[29] WANG C H, SHA P, HU Y F, et al., 2011. Study of squeezing deformation problems during tunneling[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 32(S2): 143-147. (in Chinese with English abstract
[30] WANG C H, DING L F, LI F Q, et al., 2012. Characteristics of in-situ stress measurement in northwest Sichuan basin with timespan of 23 years and its crustal dynamics significance[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 31(11): 2171-2181. (in Chinese with English abstract
[31] WANG C H, SONG C K, GUO Q L, et al., 2014a. Stress build-up in the shallow crust before the Lushan Earthquake based on the in-situ stress measurements[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 57(1): 102-114. (in Chinese with English abstract
[32] WANG C H, XING B R, CHEN Y Q, 2014b. Prediction of stress field of super-long deep-buried tunnel area and case analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 36(5): 955-960. (in Chinese with English abstract
[33] WANG C H, GAO G Y, YANG S X, et al., 2019. Analysis and prediction of stress fields of Sichuan—Tibet railway area based on contemporary tectonic stress field zoning in Western China[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 38(11): 2242-2253. (in Chinese with English abstract
[34] WANG D, LI T B, JIANG L W, et al., 2017. Analysis of the stress characteristics and rock burst of ultra deep buried tunnel in Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 34(4): 46-50. (in Chinese with English abstract
[35] WANG L X, 2023. Research on tunnel construction technology in high altitude and high stress areas[J]. Value Engineering, 42(13): 31-33. (in Chinese with English abstract
[36] WANG Y, AI Y X, 2017. Reason analysis and treatment measures for the slip collapse of Zangrila tunnel crossing moraine body[J]. Subgrade Engineering(2): 220-224. (in Chinese)
[37] WU S S, 2020. Study on large deformation classification of Changdu tunnel of Sichuan-Tibet railway[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University. (in Chinese with English abstract
[38] XIE F R, CUI X F, ZHAO J T, et al., 2004. Regional division of the recent tectonic stress field in China and adjacent areas[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 47(4): 654-662. (in Chinese with English abstract
[39] XIE F R, CHEN Q C, CUI X F, et al., 2007. Fundamental database of crustal stress environment in continental China[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 22(1): 131-136. (in Chinese with English abstract
[40] XU J S, WANG J X, CHEN X Q, et al., 2022. Effects of Poisson ratio on in-situ stress field near the Jiali fault along the Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Earth Science, 47(3): 818-830. (in Chinese with English abstract
[41] XU L S, WANG L S, 1999. Study on the laws of rockburst and its forecasting in the tunnel of Erlang mountain road[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 21(5): 569-572. (in Chinese with English abstract
[42] XU Z X, MENG W, GUO C B, et al., 2021a. In-situ stress measurement and its application of a deep-buried tunnel in Zheduo mountain, West Sichuan[J]. Geoscience, 35(1): 114-125. (in Chinese with English abstract
[43] XU Z X, ZHANG L G, JIANG L W, et al., 2021b. Engineering geological environment and main engineering geological problems of Ya’an-Linzhi section of the Sichuan—Tibet railway[J]. Advanced Engineering Sciences, 53(3): 29-42. (in Chinese with English abstract
[44] XUE Y G, KONG F M, YANG W M, et al., 2020. Main unfavorable geological conditions and engineering geological problems along Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 39(3): 445-468. (in Chinese with English abstract
[45] YAN J, HE C, WANG B, et al., 2019. Inoculation and characters of rockbursts in extra-long and deep-lying tunnels located on Yarlung Zangbo suture[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 38(4): 769-781. (in Chinese with English abstract
[46] YANG S X, YAO R, CUI X F, et al., 2012. Analysis of measured stress characteristics in the Chinese mainland, active blocks, and North-South Seismic Belt[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 55(12): 4207-4217. (in Chinese with English abstract
[47] YANG Y H. 2017. The dynamics of eastern Tibet from focal mechanism and seismic anisotropy[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology. (in Chinese with English abstract
[48] ZHANG C Y, DU S H, HE M C, et al., 2022. Characteristics of in-situ stresses on the western margin of the eastern Himalayan syntaxis and its influence on stability of tunnel surrounding rock[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 41(5): 954-968. (in Chinese with English abstract
[49] ZHANG J B, 2021. Research on classification of rockburst intensity and criterion of stress intensity for LASA to Linzhi railway tunnel[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University. (in Chinese with English abstract
[50] ZHANG J J, FU B J, 2008. Rockburst and its criteria and control[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 27(10): 2034-2042. (in Chinese with English abstract
[51] ZHANG P, QU Y M, GUO C B, et al., 2017. Analysis of in-situ stress measurement and real-time monitoring results in Nyching of Tibetan Plateau and its response to Nepal MS8.1 earthquake[J]. Geoscience, 31(5): 900-910. (in Chinese with English abstract
[52] ZHANG R G, 2022. Research on construction quality control of soft rock large deformation tunnel[J]. Journal of Guangdong Communication Polytechnic, 21(2): 12-17. (in Chinese with English abstract
[53] ZHANG S A, WU M L, JIANG J, et al., 2024. Analysis of rockburst criteria based on measured data of in-situ stress during tunnel construction[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, 40(3): 1-9. (in Chinese with English abstract
[54] ZHANG X J, ZHANG G, 2023. Study on construction treatment measures for soft rock large deformation in tunnels of the Western Sichuan Plateau[J]. Modern Transportation Technology, 20(2): 54-58, 70. (in Chinese with English abstract
[55] ZHAO Y, 2021. Study on mechanical properties and deformation control of layered surrounding rock of deep buried tunnel[D]. Huainan: Anhui University of Science and Technology. (in Chinese with English abstract
[56] ZHENG Z X, SUN Q Q, 2017. Tunnel engineering of Sichuan-Tibet railway[J]. Tunnel Construction, 37(8): 1049-1054. (in Chinese with English abstract
[57] ZHONG Y, LIU Y, ZHENG Z Q, 2009. Comprehensive treatment technology for large deformation of surrounding rock in Sichuan-Tibet road tunnels[J]. Southwest Highway, (4): 129-132. (in Chinese with English abstract
[58] 常帅鹏,2021. 川藏铁路通麦至鲁朗段选线工程地质研究[J]. 隧道建设(中英文),41(6):988.
[59] 陈兴强,2022. 断层破碎带对川藏交通廊道通麦隧道初始地应力场影响[J]. 地球科学,47(6):2120-2129. doi: 10.3321/j.issn.1000-2383.2022.6.dqkx202206017
[60] 陈志春,2017. 拉林铁路片麻岩隧道岩爆预测及防治措施[J]. 山西建筑,43(14):165-166. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6825.2017.14.090
[61] 程刚,龚伦,俞景文,等,2020. 高海拔板岩隧道大变形特性及控制技术研究[J]. 地下空间与工程学报,16(S2):744-751.
[62] 丁林,钟大赉,2013. 印度与欧亚板块碰撞以来东喜马拉雅构造结的演化[J]. 地质科学,48(2):317-333.
[63] 丁秀丽,张雨霆,黄书岭,等,2023. 隧洞围岩大变形机制、挤压大变形预测及应用[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,42(3):521-544.
[64] 范玉璐,曹佳文,余顺,等,2023. 高地应力作用下渭武高速木寨岭隧道围岩大变形灾变预测分析研究[J]. 地质力学学报,29(6):786-800. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2022110
[65] 傅甜甜,2022. 朗镇二号软岩隧道开挖工法对比研究[D]. 拉萨:西藏大学.
[66] 高阳,2020. 软弱围岩大变形初期支护施工质量控制[J]. 工程机械与维修(4):94-95.
[67] 宫凤强,代金豪,王明洋,等,2022. 高地应力“强度&应力”耦合判据及其分级标准[J]. 工程地质学报,30(6):1893-1913.
[68] 龚海军,赵耿鹏,严健,等,2021. 川藏公路矮拉山隧道大变形特征及其影响因素分析[J]. 隧道建设(中英文),41(S2):129-136.
[69] 龚建辉,孙晓,2019. 川藏铁路隧道洞口高陡自然边坡加固技术[J]. 四川建筑,39(3):78-80. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-8983.2019.03.028
[70] 辜良仙,2017. 高地应力软岩大变形隧道变形控制技术研究[D]. 重庆:重庆交通大学.
[71] 国家铁路局,2016. 铁路隧道设计规范:TB 10003—2016[S]. 北京:中国铁道出版 社.
[72] 国家铁路局,2022. 铁路工程不良地质勘察规程:TB/T 10027—2022[S]. 北京:中国铁道出版社.
[73] 廖昕,吕改杰,陈仕阔,等,2024. 藏东贡觉地区地应力场分布特征及影响因素研究[J]. 地球物理学进展,39(3):938-950. doi: 10.6038/pg2024HH0255
[74] 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[J]. 岩土工程学报,30(5):690-697. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2008.05.012
[75] 刘卓岩,王成虎,徐鑫,等,2017. 基于地应力实测数据分析郯庐断裂带中段滑动趋势[J]. 现代地质,31(4):869-876. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8527.2017.04.021
[76] 苗永旺,2018. 藏噶隧道围岩大变形施工技术研究[J]. 高速铁路技术,9(S2):127-133.
[77] 任洋,王栋,李天斌,等,2021. 川藏铁路雅安至新都桥段地应力特征及工程效应分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,40(1):65-76.
[78] 孙炜锋,郭长宝,张广泽,等,2021. 川西郭达山隧道水平孔地应力测量与工程意义[J]. 现代地质,35(1):126-136.
[79] 谭成轩,张鹏,王继明,等,2023. 原位地应力测量与实时监测在强构造活动区深埋地下工程中应用的思考[J]. 地质力学学报,29(6):757-769. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2023122
[80] 陶琦,2023. 考虑岩体膨胀效应的高地应力软岩隧道稳定性控制研究:以米林隧道为例[J]. 隧道建设(中英文),43(8):1327-1337.
[81] 陶伟,2016. 新二郎山隧道岩爆特征与防治经验总结[J]. 四川建筑,36(2):264-265. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-8983.2016.02.094
[82] 田朝阳,兰恒星,张宁,等,2022. 某交通线路色季拉山隧道高地应力岩爆风险定量预测研究[J]. 工程地质学报,30(3):621-634, doi: 10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2022-0113.
[83] 田四明,王伟,唐国荣,等,2021. 川藏铁路隧道工程重大不良地质应对方案探讨[J]. 隧道建设(中英文),41(5):697-712.
[84] 王成虎,沙鹏,胡元芳,等,2011. 隧道围岩挤压变形问题探究[J]. 岩土力学,32(S2):143-147.
[85] 王成虎,丁立丰,李方全,等,2012. 川西北跨度23a的原地应力实测数据特征及其地壳动力学意义分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,31(11):2171-2181. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6915.2012.11.004
[86] 王成虎,宋成科,郭启良,等,2014a. 利用原地应力实测资料分析芦山地震震前浅部地壳应力积累[J]. 地球物理学报,57(1):102-114.
[87] 王成虎,邢博瑞,陈永前,2014b. 长大深埋隧道工程区地应力状态预测与实例分析[J]. 岩土工程学报,36(5):955-960.
[88] 王成虎,高桂云,杨树新,等,2019. 基于中国西部构造应力分区的川藏铁路沿线地应力的状态分析与预估[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,38(11):2242-2253.
[89] 王栋,李天斌,蒋良文,等,2017. 川藏铁路某超深埋隧道地应力特征及岩爆分析[J]. 铁道工程学报,34(4):46-50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2106.2017.04.010
[90] 王刘勋,2023. 高海拔高应力地区隧道施工工艺技术研究[J]. 价值工程,42(13):31-33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4311.2023.13.009
[91] 王勇,艾永祥,2017. 藏日拉隧道穿越冰碛体掌子面发生溜坍原因分析及处治措施[J]. 路基工程(2):220-224.
[92] 巫升山,2020. 川藏铁路昌都隧道大变形分级研究[D]. 成都:西南交通大学.
[93] 谢富仁,崔效锋,赵建涛,等,2004. 中国大陆及邻区现代构造应力场分区[J]. 地球物理学报,47(4):654-662. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0001-5733.2004.04.016
[94] 谢富仁,陈群策,崔效锋,等,2007. 中国大陆地壳应力环境基础数据库[J]. 地球物理学进展,22(1):131-136. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2903.2007.01.018
[95] 许俊闪,王建新,陈兴强,等,2022. 泊松比对川藏铁路嘉黎断裂附近地应力场的影响[J]. 地球科学,47(3):818-830. doi: 10.3321/j.issn.1000-2383.2022.3.dqkx202203006
[96] 徐林生,王兰生,1999. 二郎山公路隧道岩爆发生规律与岩爆预测研究[J]. 岩土工程学报,21(5):569-572. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.1999.05.009
[97] 徐正宣,孟文,郭长宝,等,2021a. 川西折多山某深埋隧道地应力测量及其应用研究[J]. 现代地质,35(1):114-125.
[98] 徐正宣,张利国,蒋良文,等,2021b. 川藏铁路雅安至林芝段工程地质环境及主要工程地质问题[J]. 工程科学与技术,53(3):29-42.
[99] 薛翊国,孔凡猛,杨为民,等,2020. 川藏铁路沿线主要不良地质条件与工程地质问题[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,39(3):445-468.
[100] 严健,何川,汪波,等,2019. 雅鲁藏布江缝合带深埋长大隧道群岩爆孕育及特征[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,38(4):769-781.
[101] 杨树新,姚瑞,崔效锋,等.,2012. 中国大陆与各活动地块、南北地震带实测应力特征分析[J]. 地球物理学报,55(12):4207-4217. doi: 10.6038/j.issn.0001-5733.2012.12.032
[102] 杨宜海,2017. 用地震震源机制和各向异性研究青藏高原东缘动力学特征[D]. 成都:成都理工大学.
[103] 张重远,杜世回,何满潮,等,2022. 喜马拉雅东构造结西缘地应力特征及其对隧道围岩稳定性的影响[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,41(5):954-968.
[104] 张镜剑,傅冰骏,2008. 岩爆及其判据和防治[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,27(10):2034-2042. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2008.10.010
[105] 张钧博,2021. 拉萨至林芝铁路隧道岩爆烈度分级与应力强度判据标准研究[D]. 成都:西南交通大学.
[106] 张鹏,曲亚明,郭长宝,等,2017. 西藏林芝地应力测量监测与尼泊尔MS8.1级强震远场响应分析[J]. 现代地质,31(5):900-910. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8527.2017.05.003
[107] 张瑞国,2022. 软岩大变形隧道施工质量控制研究[J]. 广东交通职业技术学院学报,21(2):12-17. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8496.2022.02.003
[108] 张士安,吴满路,江蛟,等,2024. 基于隧道施工阶段地应力实测数据的岩爆判据研究[J]. 防灾减灾学报,40(3):1-9.
[109] 张晓军,张贵,2023. 川西高原隧道软岩大变形施工处治措施研究[J]. 现代交通技术,20(2):54-58,70. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9889.2023.02.011
[110] 赵煜,2021. 深埋隧道层状围岩力学特性及变形防控研究[D]. 淮南:安徽理工大学.
[111] 郑宗溪,孙其清,2017. 川藏铁路隧道工程[J]. 隧道建设,37(8):1049-1054.
[112] 钟勇,刘勇,郑仲钦,2009. 川藏路隧道围岩大变形综合处治技术[J]. 西南公路,(4):129-132.
-
图(7)
表(9)
计量
- 文章访问数: 42
- PDF下载数: 1
- 施引文献: 0