CN107423524B - Method for pre-judging risk level of long-buried-depth tunnel water inrush disaster - Google Patents
Method for pre-judging risk level of long-buried-depth tunnel water inrush disaster Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN107423524B CN107423524B CN201710701180.XA CN201710701180A CN107423524B CN 107423524 B CN107423524 B CN 107423524B CN 201710701180 A CN201710701180 A CN 201710701180A CN 107423524 B CN107423524 B CN 107423524B
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- score
- rock
- degree
- value
- risk
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
- G06F30/10—Geometric CAD
- G06F30/13—Architectural design, e.g. computer-aided architectural design [CAAD] related to design of buildings, bridges, landscapes, production plants or roads
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
- G06F30/20—Design optimisation, verification or simulation
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02A—TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02A10/00—TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE at coastal zones; at river basins
- Y02A10/40—Controlling or monitoring, e.g. of flood or hurricane; Forecasting, e.g. risk assessment or mapping
Abstract
The invention discloses a method for pre-judging the risk level of a water inrush disaster of a long buried deep tunnel, which solves the problem of evaluating the water inrush risk level of a hydraulic tunnel with a non-karst complex geological structure, evaluates the water inrush risk level of the hydraulic tunnel according to hydrogeological conditions surveyed in the early stage of the hydraulic tunnel, and takes corresponding preventive measures for the water inrush disaster according to the risk level on the basis of the rating result; the method for prejudging the gushing water condition of the section to be constructed in front has simple steps, and constructors do not need to calculate a large amount of calculation in engineering practice, so that the prejudging of the gushing water condition of the section to be constructed in front can be carried out.
Description
Technical Field
The invention belongs to the technical field of water conservancy and hydropower engineering, and relates to a method for pre-judging the risk level of a long buried deep tunnel water inrush disaster.
Background
With the rapid development of infrastructure engineering construction in China, the scale and difficulty of the construction of underground caverns in water conservancy, hydropower and traffic engineering are in the forefront of the world. Most underground caverns under construction or to be constructed have the characteristics of large buried depth, long tunnel line, complex and variable geological structure along the tunnel line and the like, for example, the total length of a water diversion tunnel of a brocade screen secondary hydropower station built in China is 18-20 km, the maximum buried depth is 2525m, the ridge-crossing section of the water delivery tunnel under construction of the Jinhan and Wei mountain is 81.8km, the maximum buried depth is about 2000m, and the geological structure is complex. This will increase the probability of water burst disasters occurring during the excavation of the cavern. The outburst water damages construction machinery, delays construction progress and damages the stability of tunnel surrounding rocks, and the heavy overflowing of underground water exhausts surrounding underground water, damages the surrounding environment and threatens the life safety of constructors.
Aiming at the evaluation method of the risk level of the sudden gushing water disaster, researchers at home and abroad are researched, Lirioping and the like summarize the disaster-causing factors of the sudden gushing water in the surveying, designing and constructing processes before the karst tunnel construction, a fuzzy level evaluation model is established, risk pre-evaluation and dynamic evaluation are carried out on the sudden gushing water, and the objective weight of each disaster-causing factor is obtained through frequency statistics. And the Zhouzongqing and the like establish an attribute identification model for evaluating the sudden gushing water risk of the karst tunnel, and realize the conversion from a qualitative evaluation method to a quantitative evaluation method by establishing an attribute measure function of each index. The positive feedback effect among all factors is considered by Zhang Zhi Cheng et al, and the form of multiplication among disaster-causing factors and the influence coefficient of the disaster-causing factors are introduced by combining an analytic hierarchy process, so that a risk evaluation model for the water inrush disaster of the deep and long tunnel is established. Aalianvari A and the like obtain hydrogeological data through preliminary exploration, and an analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy Delphi method are utilized to evaluate and grade the risk of water inrush of the tunnel and predict the water inrush quantity, so that whether the tunnel site selection is reasonable or not is judged.
The prior art mainly analyzes the influence factors of water inrush in karst tunnels, but has limited applicability to hydraulic tunnels in non-karst areas with complex geological conditions.
The prior art mainly analyzes the influence factors of water inrush in karst tunnels, and has limited applicability to hydraulic tunnels in non-karst areas but with complex geological conditions.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to provide a method for pre-judging the sudden inrush water disaster risk level of a long buried deep tunnel, and establishes an evaluation method for the sudden inrush water disaster risk of a hydraulic tunnel under complex geological conditions of non-karst areas.
The invention adopts the technical scheme that a method for pre-judging the risk level of the water inrush disaster of the long buried deep tunnel specifically comprises the following steps:
step 1, analyzing main influence factors of sudden water burst disasters in a long buried deep hydraulic tunnel;
step 3, formulating a discrimination matrix according to the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, and then calculating the weight omega of each index by utilizing matlab according to the discrimination matrixijWherein, i is 1, 2 … 7, j is 1, 2;
step 5, evaluating the danger level;
and 6, predicting the inrush water quantity on the basis of the danger level determined in the step 5.
In step 1: the main influencing factors comprise stratum lithology, rock stratum inclination angle, unfavorable geology, surface confluence condition, water head pressure above a tunnel, a soluble rock and non-soluble rock contact zone, joint fracture development and combination of the joint fracture development and surface catchment, the stratum lithology comprises a rock structure and a rock type, and the unfavorable geology comprises the width of a fault broken zone, the fault property or the position characteristic of folds and the rock stratum thickness.
In step 2: the index system mainly comprises a first-level index and a second-level index, wherein the first-level index comprises stratum lithology, rock stratum inclination angle, unfavorable geology, surface confluence condition, water head pressure above a tunnel, a soluble rock and non-soluble rock contact zone, joint fracture development and combination of the joint fracture development and surface catchment, and the second-level index comprises rock structure, rock type, fault fracture zone width, fault property or fold position characteristics and rock stratum thickness.
In the step 2: the segmentation grading method is used for specifically expressing the disaster-causing degree of each index, specifically expressing the disaster-causing degree of a plurality of qualitative indexes by adopting discrete scores, and expressing the disaster-causing degree of a plurality of quantitative indexes by adopting a continuous score curve, and specifically comprises the following steps:
(1) lithology of stratum I1The degree of disaster is determined by the structure of the rock I11Type I of rock12Expressed, the structure of the rock I11The division is as follows: the structure score of the biological debris is 100, the structure score of the mud crystal is 80, the structure score of the grain debris is 60, the structure score of the bright crystal is 40, and the structure score of the coarse crystal is 20; type I of rock12The division is as follows: the limestone score is 100, the dolomite limestone and argillaceous limestone score is 90, the grey dolomite, dolomite and marble score is 70, the grey mudstone score is 30, the mudstone and other non-carbonate rock scores are 10, and when various rock types (structures) appear in the evaluated section, the scores are calculated by adopting a formula (1):
in the formula: n-nth rock type (structure);
m is the number of types (structures) of rocks;
I1j n-score of nth rock type (structure);
An-the amount of the nth rock as a percentage of the total rock amount;
(2) grade value I of stratum disaster degree2Dividing by a rock stratum inclination angle phi degree, and concretely dividing as follows:
the value of 0-phi < 10 is Ia 2I is 3 phi, phi is more than 10 and less than or equal to 45a 2I is 30+2 phi, phi is more than or equal to 45 and less than 80a 2I is 100-2 phi, phi is more than or equal to 80 and less than or equal to 100a 2When the evaluated section shows multiple formation symptoms, the score is calculated using the following formula (2):
in the formula: a-a formation dip angle;
b-the number of formation dip angles for the section;
Aa-the percentage of the total area of the section occupied by the dip of the a-th formation;
(3) unfavorable geology I3The grading value of the disaster-causing degree has two expression modes, namely the disaster-causing degree I through the width of the crushing belt according to the statement of the No. 29 No. 2 on the modern geological journal31And degree of fault nature disaster I32Expression or site characteristic I'31And rock formation of'32The first expression is expressed by fault, and the expression is as follows: score value I when the fault property is tonicity 32100, when the fault property is torsion, the score value I3270, when the fault property is torsion, the score value I3250, when the fault property is pressure torsion, the score value I3230, when the fault property is compressive, the score value I32Is 20; another expression is by pleatingThe expression, the expression is as follows: when the core part is folded, the score value is 100, when the thickness of the monoclinic ultra-thick layer is more than 1m, the score value is 80, when the thickness of the monoclinic ultra-thick layer is 0.5-1 m, the score value is 40, when the thickness of the monoclinic medium-thick layer and the thin layer is less than 0.5m, the score value is 10; width I of crushing belt31The disaster degree score values are expressed as follows: x is more than 0 and less than 4.5, I31＝200x/9，x＞4.5，I31In the formula, x represents the width of a certain crushing belt;
(4) surface confluence Condition I4Disaster degree passing through surface catchment area I4(km2) The expression, known from the railway engineering hydrogeological survey specification, is specifically divided into the following: the surface catchment area is more than 80km2The time score is 80-100, and the surface catchment area is 40-80 km2The time scale value is 60-80, and the surface catchment area is 20-40 km2The time, the score value is 40-60, and the surface catchment area is 10-20 km2The grade value is 20-40, and the surface catchment area is less than 10km2When the value is 0-20;
(5) evaluation value I of disaster degree of pressure above tunnel5Expressed by the water head pressure above the tunnel, the score value is specifically expressed as: when y is more than 0 and less than 1000, I5Y/10; when y is greater than 1000, I5100; in the formula, y represents the water head pressure above the tunnel;
(6) the disaster-causing degree of the contact zone of soluble rock and non-soluble rock (lithology) expresses the grade value I through the scale and the development degree of the contact zone6The concrete expression is as follows: score I when strong soluble rock comes into contact with medium soluble rock6A score of I of 100 when strong soluble rocks are in contact with weak soluble rocks 680, score value I when strong soluble rock is in contact with non-soluble rock, medium soluble rock is in contact with weak soluble rock 660, score I when the contact zone between the medium soluble rock and the non-soluble rock is reached6Score I was 40 when weakly soluble rock was in contact with non-soluble rock6Is 20;
(7) the disaster-causing degree of the development of the joint crack and the combination degree of the joint crack and the ground surface confluence is multiplied by 10 through the river scale4m3D) degree of bondingTo express the score value I7The concrete expression is as follows: when the growth degree of the joint cracks is that the grown cracks grow very well and tend to the body of the hole, and the scale of the surface river is higher than 10 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 100; the growth degree of the joint cracks is that the growing cracks grow relatively and tend to the body of the hole, and the scale of the surface river is 5-10 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 80; when the growth degree of the joint crack is that the growing crack grows more, does not grow and tends to the body, and the scale of the surface river is 1-5 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 50; when the joint crack development degree is that the growing crack does not develop, and the surface river scale is 0.5-1 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 20; when the joint crack development degree is no long and large crack, and the surface river scale is not higher than 0.5 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 10.
In step 4: the risk level of the inrush water is divided as follows: the total risk score C is more than 85 and is rated as extremely high risk (grade I), the total risk score C is 65-85 and is rated as high risk (grade II), the total risk score C is 45-65 and is rated as medium risk (grade III), the total risk score C is 25-45 and is rated as low risk (grade IV), and the total risk score C is less than 25 and is rated as micro risk or basically no risk (grade V).
In step 4:
he ═ k, where, CmaxAnd CminThe maximum and minimum boundaries of the total risk score of each grade are respectively, k is a constant and is taken as 0.01.
In step 5: the evaluation of the risk level comprises the following specific steps:
1) analyzing the geological condition of the section to be evaluated, and scoring each index Ii、Iij；
2) Calculating the first level index Ii：
3) Calculating a total risk score C:
4) and searching a grade range in the target cloud model according to the total risk rating value obtained in the step 3), and checking a rating result by using the actual surge water amount.
Step (6) is to carry out the single-point inrush water quantity (Qx 10) based on the risk determined in step (5)4m3And d) predicting, wherein the prediction range is as follows: very high hazard (class i): single point water inflow greater than 5, high hazard (class ii): the single-point water inflow is 1-5, and the risk is moderate (III level): the single-point water inflow is 0.1-1, and the risk is low (IV level): the single-point water inflow is 0.01-0.1, and is slightly dangerous or basically non-dangerous (V grade): the single point water inflow is less than 0.01.
The method for pre-judging the risk level of the water inrush disaster of the long buried deep tunnel has the advantages that: the method solves the problem of evaluating the sudden water inrush risk level of the hydraulic tunnel with a non-karst complex geological structure, evaluates the sudden water inrush risk level of the hydraulic tunnel according to the early-stage surveyed hydrogeological conditions, and takes corresponding preventive measures for the sudden water inrush disaster according to the risk level on the basis of the rating result; the method for prejudging the gushing water condition of the section to be constructed in front has simple steps, and constructors do not need to calculate a large amount of calculation in engineering practice, so that the prejudging of the gushing water condition of the section to be constructed in front can be carried out.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a dividing curve of the evaluation value of the rock strata attitude in the method for predicting the risk level of the gushing water disaster in the long buried deep tunnel of the present invention;
FIG. 2 is a score value division curve of unfavorable geology in the method for pre-judging the risk level of the gushing water disaster of the long buried deep tunnel;
FIG. 3 is a dividing curve of the evaluation value of the surface confluence condition in the method for pre-judging the risk level of the gushing water disaster in the long buried deep tunnel of the present invention;
FIG. 4 is a dividing curve of the pressure score value above the tunnel in the method for pre-judging the risk level of the water inrush disaster in the long buried deep tunnel of the present invention;
FIG. 5 is a cloud model diagram of a target layer involved in the method for predicting the risk level of the water inrush disaster in the long buried deep tunnel according to the present invention;
Detailed Description
The present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments.
The invention relates to a method for pre-judging the risk level of a water inrush disaster in a long buried deep tunnel, which comprises the following steps:
step 1, analyzing main influence factors of sudden water burst disasters in a long buried deep hydraulic tunnel; the main influencing factors comprise stratum lithology, rock stratum inclination angle, unfavorable geology, surface confluence condition, water head pressure above a tunnel, a soluble rock and non-soluble rock contact zone, joint fracture development and combination of the joint fracture development and surface catchment, the stratum lithology comprises a rock structure and a rock type, and the unfavorable geology comprises the width of a fault broken zone, the fault property or the position characteristic of folds and the rock stratum thickness.
(1) lithology of stratum I1The degree of disaster is determined by the structure of the rock I11Type I of rock12Expressed, the structure of the rock I11The division is as follows: the structure score of the biological debris is 100, the structure score of the mud crystal is 80, the structure score of the grain debris is 60, the structure score of the bright crystal is 40, and the structure score of the coarse crystal is 20; type I of rock12The division is as follows: the limestone score is 100, the dolomite limestone and argillaceous limestone score is 90, the grey dolomite, dolomite and marble score is 70, the grey mudstone score is 30, the mudstone and other non-carbonate rock scores are 10, and when various rock types (structures) appear in the evaluated section, the scores are calculated by adopting a formula (1):
in the formula: n-nth rock type (structure);
m is the number of types (structures) of rocks;
I1j n-score of nth rock type (structure);
An-the amount of the nth rock as a percentage of the total rock amount;
(2) grade value I of stratum disaster degree2The division is performed by the rock formation dip angle Φ degrees, as shown in fig. 2, and the specific division is as follows:
the value of 0-phi < 10 is Ia 2I is 3 phi, phi is more than 10 and less than or equal to 45a 2I is 30+2 phi, phi is more than or equal to 45 and less than 80a 2I is 100-2 phi, phi is more than or equal to 80 and less than or equal to 100a 2When the evaluated section shows multiple formation symptoms, the score is calculated using the following formula (2):
in the formula: a-a formation dip angle;
b-the number of formation dip angles for the section;
Aa-the percentage of the total area of the section occupied by the dip of the a-th formation;
(3) unfavorable geology I3The grading value of the disaster degree has two expression modes, namely the disaster degree I is expressed through the width of the crushing belt31And degree of fault nature disaster I32Expression or site characteristic I'31And rock formation of'32The first expression is expressed by fault, and the expression is as follows: score value I when the fault property is tonicity32100, when the fault property is torsion, the score value I3270, when the fault property is torsion, the score value I3250, when the fault property is pressure torsion, the score value I3230, when the fault property is compressive, the score value I32Is 20; another expression is expressed by the folds, which is as follows: when the core part is folded, the score value is 100, when the thickness of the monoclinic ultra-thick layer is more than 1m, the score value is 80, when the thickness of the monoclinic ultra-thick layer is 0.5-1 m, the score value is 40, when the thickness of the monoclinic medium-thick layer and the thin layer is less than 0.5m, the score value is 10; as shown in fig. 2, the width I of the breaker belt31The disaster degree score values are expressed as follows: x is more than 0 and less than 4.5, I31＝200x/9，x＞4.5，I31In the formula, x represents the width of a certain crushing belt;
(4) surface confluence Condition I4Disaster degree passing through surface catchment area I4(km2) The expression, as shown in fig. 3, is specifically divided as follows: the surface catchment area is more than 80km2The time score is 80-100, and the surface catchment area is 40-80 km2The time scale value is 60-80, and the surface catchment area is 20-40 km2The time, the score value is 40-60, and the surface catchment area is 10-20 km2The grade value is 20-40, and the surface catchment area is less than 10km2When the value is 0-20;
(5) evaluation value I of disaster degree of pressure above tunnel5Passing through the water above the tunnelThe head pressure expression score value, as shown in fig. 4, is specifically expressed as: when y is more than 0 and less than 1000, I5Y/10; when y is greater than 1000, I5100; in the formula, y represents the water head pressure above the tunnel;
(6) the disaster-causing degree of the contact zone of soluble rock and non-soluble rock (lithology) expresses the grade value I through the scale and the development degree of the contact zone6: according to the attribute identification model for evaluating the risk of sudden gushing of water in karst tunnel and the engineering application thereof in the journal of geomechanics, No. 34, No. 3, the disaster-causing degree of the contact zone of soluble rock and non-soluble rock (lithology) expresses the evaluation value I through the scale and the development degree of the contact zone6The concrete expression is as follows: score I when strong soluble rock comes into contact with medium soluble rock6A score of I of 100 when strong soluble rocks are in contact with weak soluble rocks 680, score value I when strong soluble rock is in contact with non-soluble rock, medium soluble rock is in contact with weak soluble rock 660, score I when the contact zone between the medium soluble rock and the non-soluble rock is reached6Score I was 40 when weakly soluble rock was in contact with non-soluble rock6Is 20;
(7) the disaster-causing degree of the development of the joint crack and the combination degree of the joint crack and the ground surface confluence is multiplied by 10 through the river scale4m3D) degree of combination to express the score value I7: according to the geotechnical journal, the model for identifying the attribute of evaluation on the risk of sudden water burst of the karst tunnel and the engineering application thereof, which is shown in No. 34, No. 3, is specifically expressed as follows: when the growth degree of the joint cracks is that the grown cracks grow very well and tend to the body of the hole, and the scale of the surface river is higher than 10 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 100; the growth degree of the joint cracks is that the growing cracks grow relatively and tend to the body of the hole, and the scale of the surface river is 5-10 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 80; when the growth degree of the joint crack is that the growing crack grows more, does not grow and tends to the body, and the scale of the surface river is 1-5 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 50; when the joint crack development degree is that the growing crack does not develop, and the surface river scale is 0.5-1 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 20; when the joint crack development degree is no long and large crack, and the surface river scale is not higher than 0.5 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 10.
Step 3, formulating a discrimination matrix according to the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, and then calculating the weight omega of each index by utilizing matlab according to the discrimination matrixijWherein, i is 1, 2 … 7, j is 1, 2; the decision matrix is as in table 1:
TABLE 1
| Index (I) | I1 | I2 | I3 | I4 | I5 | I6 | I7 |
| I1 | 1 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 2 | 1/3 | 1/5 |
| I2 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/5 |
| I3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| I4 | 5 | 5 | 1/2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| I5 | 1/2 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 |
| I6 | 3 | 4 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| I7 | 5 | 5 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 |
In step 4:
he ═ k, where, CmaxAnd CminRespectively for each grade of riskThe maximum and minimum boundaries of the score, k is a constant, and is taken to be 0.01.
Step 5, evaluating the danger level; the evaluation of the risk level comprises the following specific steps:
1) analyzing the geological condition of the section to be evaluated, and scoring each index Ii、Iij；
2) Calculating the first level index Ii：
3) Calculating a total risk score C:
4) and searching a grade range in the target cloud model according to the total risk rating value obtained in the step 3), and checking a rating result by using the actual surge water amount.
And 6, predicting the inrush water quantity on the basis of the danger level determined in the step 5, wherein the prediction range is as follows: very high hazard (class i): single point water inflow greater than 5, high hazard (class ii): the single-point water inflow is 1-5, and the risk is moderate (III level): the single-point water inflow is 0.1-1, and the risk is low (IV level): the single-point water inflow is 0.01-0.1, and is slightly dangerous or basically non-dangerous (V grade): the single point water inflow is less than 0.01.
The following takes the sections k12+ 500-k 19+000 in the Qinling mountain water delivery tunnel as an example of the evaluation process of the risk level of the sudden water inrush disaster.
1) And analyzing the geological condition of the section and scoring each index.
Lithology of stratum I1: the section is mainly distributed with a lower ancient long-angle dam rock group sand dam rock group (Pt)1cs.) And lower ancient boundary long-angle dam rock group black dragon pool rock group (Pt)1cw.) The main rock group is marbles (Pt)1cs. Mb): the mineral components mainly comprise calcite and dolomite, part of the calcite and the dolomite contains graphite or amphibole, and the dolomite belongs to medium-hard rock with a fine grain metamorphic structure and a blocky structure. Quartz schist(Pt1cw. qSc) The main mineral components are quartz and plagioclase feldspar, and the main mineral components are of granular morphotropic structures and sheet structures, and belong to medium hardness. Therefore, the quantitative score of the index one is the rock type: 40 minutes, rock structure: 40 minutes
Inclination angle of rock formation I2: the range is 25-46 degrees, so the quantization score is 70 points
Unfavorable geology I3: the f4 and f5 distributed in the section are two faults in a broken layer group of a seedling bed dam-ten mu land, are positioned at one line of ten mu land-old village, are sheared along the seedling bed dam-ten mu land to spread sliding strips, and are inherited faults of early tough-brittle shearing strips with the length of more than 20 km.. The fault zone materials mainly comprise fault cobbles and fault mud, the fault zone width is 10-50 m, descending spring dew exists under the fault zone, and f5 is a positive fault. Therefore, the quantitative score is the width of a fault fracture belt: 100 points and 80 points of fault property. Surface catchment area I4: the section of distributed ground surface river comprises a Chinese holly ditch, a big Chinese ditch, a rear ditch, a small Chinese ditch, a surplus platform ditch, a three-in-one ditch, a horse raising ditch, a small long ditch and a south-tile ditch, and the total confluence area is 83.8km2Therefore, the quantization score is 90.
Head pressure above tunnel I5: the average head pressure above the tunnel section was 345m, so its quantified score was 35.
Soluble rock and non-soluble rock contact zone I6: the area of the section is provided with a contact zone of medium soluble rocks and relatively soluble rocks of quartzite and marble rock and a contact zone of non-soluble rocks and medium soluble rocks of gneiss and marble rock, so that the quantitative score of the contact zone is 50.
Associativity of joint fissure development degree and hole body I7: the growing cracks are relatively developed and tend to the body of the hole, and the river on the earth surface has unconformity and breakage, so the quantitative score is 100.
2) The score value of the primary index is calculated using formula (3).
Calculated to obtain the segment I140 points, I3The score is 85.
3) The total score value of the risk is calculated using equation (4).
The total score of the segment is calculated as C-76.79 points
4) Determination of grade and checking of grade
And (4) searching the grade range of the target layer cloud model in a target layer cloud model diagram 5 according to the total score calculated in the third step, and checking the grade result by using the actual surge water amount of the excavated section of the Qinling mountain tunnel. The total score of the section is 76.79, the danger level of the section is likely to be II or I grade by searching in figure 5, but the danger level is determined to be II grade because the degree of membership of the I grade is very small, and the maximum water inflow per point of the section in the actual excavation process is about 11350m3And d, comparing the risk grade divided according to the single-point water inflow in the step 6 with a grade II, and enabling the result to be consistent with the actual result.
By the mode, the bathing device with the angle easy to adjust can flexibly adjust the angle of water, the shower head assembly is arranged on the spoon head of the fixing frame under the action of magnetic attraction between the fixing frame and the shower head assembly, and the shower head assembly is pushed only by slight force when the angle is changed due to the smooth contact surface between the shower head assembly and the spoon head; the bathing device has the advantages of simple structure, convenience in use, attractive appearance and convenience in life of people.
Claims (1)
1. A method for pre-judging the risk level of a long buried deep tunnel water inrush disaster is characterized by comprising the following steps:
step 1, analyzing main influence factors of sudden water burst disasters in a long buried deep hydraulic tunnel;
the main influencing factors comprise stratum lithology, rock stratum inclination angle, unfavorable geology, surface confluence condition, water head pressure above a tunnel, a contact zone of soluble rock and non-soluble rock, joint fracture development and combination of the joint fracture development and surface catchment, the stratum lithology comprises a rock structure and a rock type, and the unfavorable geology is formed by the width of a fault fracture zone, the fault property or the position characteristics of folds and the thickness of a rock stratum;
step 2, constructing an index system of the sudden water inrush risk of the ultra-long deep-buried hydraulic tunnel, and expressing the disaster-causing degree of each factor by adopting a full score of 100 and adopting a discrete score and a continuous score as a quantitative index;
the index system mainly comprises a first-level index and a second-level index, wherein the first-level index comprises stratum lithology, rock stratum inclination angle, unfavorable geology, surface confluence condition, water head pressure above a tunnel, a soluble rock and non-soluble rock contact zone, joint fracture development and combination of the joint fracture development and surface catchment, and the second-level index comprises a rock structure, a rock type, a fault fracture zone width, fault properties or fold position characteristics and rock stratum thickness;
the segmentation grading method is used for specifically expressing the disaster-causing degree of each index, specifically expressing the disaster-causing degree of qualitative indexes by adopting discrete values, and expressing the disaster-causing degree of quantitative indexes by adopting a continuous value curve, and specifically comprises the following steps:
(1) lithology of stratum I1The degree of disaster is determined by the structure of the rock I11Type I of rock12Expressed, the structure of the rock I11The division is as follows: the structure score of the biological debris is 100, the structure score of the mud crystal is 80, the structure score of the grain debris is 60, the structure score of the bright crystal is 40, and the structure score of the coarse crystal is 20; type I of rock12The division is as follows: the limestone score is 100, the dolomite limestone and argillaceous limestone score is 90, the grey dolomite, dolomite and marble score is 70, the grey mudstone score is 30, the mudstone and other non-carbonate rock scores are 10, and when various rock types or structures appear in the evaluated section, the scores are calculated by adopting a formula (1):
in the formula: n-nth rock type or structure;
m is the type or structure number of the rock;
I1j n-a score for the nth rock type or structure;
An-the amount of the nth rock as a percentage of the total rock amount;
(2) grade value I of stratum disaster degree2Dividing by a rock stratum inclination angle phi degree, and concretely dividing as follows:
the value of 0-phi < 10 is Ia 2I is 3 phi, phi is more than 10 and less than or equal to 45a 2I is 30+2 phi, phi is more than or equal to 45 and less than 80a 2I is 100-2 phi, phi is more than or equal to 80 and less than or equal to 100a 2When the evaluated section shows multiple formation symptoms, the score is calculated using the following formula (2):
in the formula: a-a formation dip angle;
b-the number of formation dip angles for the section;
Aa-the percentage of the total area of the section occupied by the dip of the a-th formation;
(3) disaster degree scoring value I of unfavorable geology3There are two expression modes, namely disaster degree I by width of crushing belt31And degree of fault nature disaster I32Expression or site characteristic I'31And rock formation of'32The first expression is expressed by fault, and the expression is as follows: score value I when the fault property is tonicity32100, when the fault property is torsion, the score value I3270, when the fault property is torsion, the score value I3250, when the fault property is pressure torsion, the score value I3230, when the fault property is compressive, the score value I32Is 20; another expression is expressed by the folds, which is as follows: when the core part is folded, the score value is 100, when the thickness of the monoclinic ultra-thick layer is more than 1m, the score value is 80, when the thickness of the monoclinic ultra-thick layer is 0.5-1 m, the score value is 40, when the thickness of the monoclinic medium-thick layer and the thin layer is less than 0.5m, the score value is 10; width I of crushing belt31The disaster degree score values are expressed as follows: x is more than 0 and less than 4.5, I31＝200x/9，x＞4.5，I31In the formula, x represents the width of a certain crushing belt;
(4) grade value I of disaster degree of surface confluence condition4Expressed by the surface catchment area, the method is divided into the following concrete steps: the surface catchment area is more than 80km2The time score is 80-100, and the surface catchment area is 40-80 km2The time scale value is 60-80, and the surface catchment area is 20-40 km2The time, the score value is 40-60, and the surface catchment area is 10-20 km2The grade value is 20-40, and the surface catchment area is less than 10km2When the value is 0-20;
(5) evaluation value I of disaster degree of pressure above tunnel5Expressed by the water head pressure above the tunnel, the score value is specifically expressed as: when y is more than 0 and less than 1000, I5Y/10; when y is greater than 1000, I5100; in the formula, y represents the water head pressure above the tunnel;
(6) the disaster-causing degree of the contact zone of the soluble rock and the non-soluble rock is expressed by the scale of the contact zone and the development degree to obtain a score value I6The concrete expression is as follows: score I when strong soluble rock comes into contact with medium soluble rock6A score of I of 100 when strong soluble rocks are in contact with weak soluble rocks680, score value I when strong soluble rock is in contact with non-soluble rock, medium soluble rock is in contact with weak soluble rock660, score I when the contact zone between the medium soluble rock and the non-soluble rock is reached6Score I was 40 when weakly soluble rock was in contact with non-soluble rock6Is 20;
(7) the degree of disaster-causing degree of joint crack development and combination degree of joint crack development and ground surface confluence is expressed by the scale of a river to obtain a score value I7The concrete expression is as follows: when the growth degree of the joint cracks is that the grown cracks grow very well and tend to the body of the hole, and the scale of the surface river is higher than 10 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 100; the growth degree of the joint cracks is that the growing cracks grow relatively and tend to the body of the hole, and the scale of the surface river is 5-10 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 80; when the joint fissure grows to be longLarge cracks develop relatively-do not develop, long cracks do not develop and tend to cave body, and the scale of the surface river is 1-5 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 50; when the joint crack development degree is that the growing crack does not develop, and the surface river scale is 0.5-1 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 20; when the joint crack development degree is no long and large crack, and the surface river scale is not higher than 0.5 multiplied by 104m3When/d, score I7Is 10;
step 3, formulating a discrimination matrix according to the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, and then calculating the weight omega of each index by utilizing matlab according to the discrimination matrixijWherein, i is 1, 2 … 7, j is 1, 2;
step 4, dividing the sudden water burst risk into 5 grades according to a 100-grade segmentation grading method, and calculating the characteristic value of each grade: expectation of ExEntropy EnEntropy of HeEstablishing a target layer cloud model by using each grade characteristic value and adopting a forward cloud generator;
in step 4: the risk level of the inrush water is divided as follows: the total risk score C is more than 85 and is rated as a very high risk level I, the total risk score C is 65-85, the total risk score C is high risk level II, the total risk score C is 45-65, the total risk score C is 25-45, the total risk score C is low risk level IV, and the total risk score C is less than 25, and the total risk score C is rated as a micro-risk or basically no risk level V;
the above-mentioned
He ═ k, where, CmaxAnd CminRespectively representing the maximum boundary and the minimum boundary of the total risk score of each grade, taking k as a constant and 0.01;
step 5, evaluating the danger level;
in step 5: the evaluation of the risk level comprises the following specific steps:
1) analyzing the geological condition of the section to be evaluated, and calculating the score value of each index to obtain Ii、Iij；
2) Calculating the first level index Ii：
3) Calculating a total risk score C:
4) searching a grade range in the target cloud model according to the total risk rating value obtained in the step 3), and checking a rating result by using the actual surge water amount;
step 6, predicting the inrush water quantity on the basis of the danger level determined in the step 5;
step 6 is to predict the single-point inrush water amount based on the risk determined in step 5, and the prediction range is as follows: extremely high risk class i: single point water inflow greater than 5 x 104m3D, high risk class II: the water inflow of a single point is 1 multiplied by 104m3/d～5×104m3D, intermediate risk grade iii: the water inflow of a single point is 0.1 multiplied by 104m3/d～1×104m3D, low risk grade IV: the water inflow of a single point is 0.01 multiplied by 104m3/d～0.1×104m3V-stage with little or no risk: the water inflow of a single point is less than 0.01 multiplied by 104m3/d。
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201710701180.XA CN107423524B (en) | 2017-08-16 | 2017-08-16 | Method for pre-judging risk level of long-buried-depth tunnel water inrush disaster |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201710701180.XA CN107423524B (en) | 2017-08-16 | 2017-08-16 | Method for pre-judging risk level of long-buried-depth tunnel water inrush disaster |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN107423524A CN107423524A (en) | 2017-12-01 |
| CN107423524B true CN107423524B (en) | 2021-02-12 |
Family
ID=60438132
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201710701180.XA Active CN107423524B (en) | 2017-08-16 | 2017-08-16 | Method for pre-judging risk level of long-buried-depth tunnel water inrush disaster |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN107423524B (en) |
Families Citing this family (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108090665A (en) * | 2017-12-13 | 2018-05-29 | 山东大学 | Method is determined based on the Karst Tunnel analysis of possibility of water inrush of trapezoidal cloud model under the conditions of one-dimensional X |
| CN108960663A (en) * | 2018-07-17 | 2018-12-07 | 安徽理工大学 | A kind of determination limestone Spray water way factor weight method based on Fuzzy Level Analytic Approach |
| CN109933577B (en) * | 2019-03-08 | 2020-12-18 | 山东大学 | Tunnel tunneling prediction method and system based on TBM rock-machine parameter dynamic interaction mechanism |
| CN112183975B (en) * | 2020-09-18 | 2024-02-23 | 中国水利水电第三工程局有限公司 | Method for making large-gradient supporting tunnel safe transportation scheme of TBM tunneling deep-buried long tunnel |
| CN112465191B (en) * | 2020-11-11 | 2022-12-09 | 中国铁路设计集团有限公司 | Method and device for predicting tunnel water inrush disaster, electronic equipment and storage medium |
| CN115627746B (en) * | 2022-12-08 | 2023-03-31 | 山东建筑大学 | Confined water stratum foundation pit anti-surging safety assessment method based on in-situ test |
| CN116681342A (en) * | 2023-06-13 | 2023-09-01 | 中铁十六局集团有限公司 | Method for evaluating disaster factor of tunnel face of water-rich sanded dolomite stratum tunnel |
| CN117668765A (en) * | 2024-01-31 | 2024-03-08 | 国网安徽省电力有限公司经济技术研究院 | Intelligent fusion processing method based on survey big data |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US7295925B2 (en) * | 1997-10-22 | 2007-11-13 | Intelligent Technologies International, Inc. | Accident avoidance systems and methods |
| CN104179514A (en) * | 2014-08-18 | 2014-12-03 | 同济大学 | Method for water inrush prediction and seepage control for underwater-tunnel broken surrounding rocks |
| CN104615873A (en) * | 2015-01-23 | 2015-05-13 | 山东大学 | Disaster-pregnant performance evaluation method for karst region inrush water disaster source |
| CN106296475A (en) * | 2016-07-29 | 2017-01-04 | 山东大学 | Tunnels and underground engineering is dashed forward discharge disaster polymorphic type combining evidences appraisal procedure |
Family Cites Families (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA2875345C (en) * | 2014-12-16 | 2018-03-20 | Gilles Nadon | Floating methanization system |
| CN106593526B (en) * | 2016-12-23 | 2018-09-11 | 长江三峡勘测研究院有限公司（武汉） | A kind of tunnel geology karst methods of risk assessment based on fuzzy Judgment |
| CN106680894B8 (en) * | 2017-02-21 | 2019-11-29 | 长江三峡勘测研究院有限公司（武汉） | A kind of tunnel geological advanced prediction method based on C/S framework |
-
2017
- 2017-08-16 CN CN201710701180.XA patent/CN107423524B/en active Active
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US7295925B2 (en) * | 1997-10-22 | 2007-11-13 | Intelligent Technologies International, Inc. | Accident avoidance systems and methods |
| CN104179514A (en) * | 2014-08-18 | 2014-12-03 | 同济大学 | Method for water inrush prediction and seepage control for underwater-tunnel broken surrounding rocks |
| CN104615873A (en) * | 2015-01-23 | 2015-05-13 | 山东大学 | Disaster-pregnant performance evaluation method for karst region inrush water disaster source |
| CN106296475A (en) * | 2016-07-29 | 2017-01-04 | 山东大学 | Tunnels and underground engineering is dashed forward discharge disaster polymorphic type combining evidences appraisal procedure |
Non-Patent Citations (3)
| Title |
|---|
| Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels and software development;Liping Li et al;《Arabian Journal of Geosciences》;20140325;1843–1854页 * |
| 地下工程突涌水及围岩渗流场研究分析;江晓洲等;《中国锰业》;20170430;第35卷(第2期);148-150页 * |
| 岩溶隧道突涌水危险性的多级模糊综合评价;张文泉等;《西安科技大学学报》;20160331;第36卷(第2期);187-192页 * |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN107423524A (en) | 2017-12-01 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CN107423524B (en) | Method for pre-judging risk level of long-buried-depth tunnel water inrush disaster | |
| Stead et al. | A critical review of rock slope failure mechanisms: The importance of structural geology | |
| Peng et al. | Characteristics of land subsidence, earth fissures and related disaster chain effects with respect to urban hazards in Xi’an, China | |
| Lu et al. | Improving the gate road development rate and reducing outburst occurrences using the waterjet technique in high gas content outburst-prone soft coal seam | |
| Zhang et al. | Prediction of the height of the water-conducting zone above the mined panel in solid backfill mining | |
| Tang | Applications of rock failure process analysis (RFPA) method | |
| CN109779624A (en) | Crack-hole type carbonate reservoir method is evaluated based on karst parametric synthesis | |
| CN105180888B (en) | High-ground stress Support System in Soft Rock Tunnels excavates deformation allowance and determines method | |
| CN106096162A (en) | A kind of method determining shield support pressure and mathematical model thereof and construction method | |
| CN111695790A (en) | Mining method for security pillar | |
| Bai et al. | Slope structures and formation of rock-soil aggregate landslides in deeply incised valleys | |
| CN109583047B (en) | Method for predicting tunnel water and mud outburst surface subsidence forming time | |
| Nguyen et al. | Analysis of behaviour of the steel arch support in the geological and mining conditions of the Cam Pha coal basin, Vietnam | |
| Wang et al. | Deformation and failure mechanism of Yanjiao rock slope influenced by rainfall and water level fluctuation of the Xiluodu hydropower station reservoir | |
| Shi et al. | Numerical analysis and deformation mechanism study on an excavated high-steep slope of a hydropower station | |
| Bao et al. | Experimental study on the sliding instability mechanism of slopes with weak layers under creeping action | |
| Xu et al. | Study on the reasonable cover thickness of a subsea tunnel with the numerical calculation criterion method | |
| Kasmer et al. | Stability of spoil piles at two coal mines in Turkey: geotechnical characterization and design considerations | |
| Huang et al. | A Typical Basalt Platform Landslide: Mechanism and Stability Prediction of Xiashan Landslide | |
| DONG et al. | Simulation of water-resistance of a clay layer during mining: analysis of a safe water head | |
| Zhang et al. | Analysis of the deformation mechanism and stability of bedding soft rock slope | |
| Si-Yi et al. | The disaster mechanism and stability evaluation of Hanhe Landslide | |
| Zhang | Evaluation of mechanisms contributing to valley closure subsidence effects under irregular topographic conditions | |
| Yan | Study on cutting high-slope stability evaluation based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and numerical simulation | |
| Hu et al. | Study on the Stability of a Transition Section from Soft to Hard Surrounding Rock Based on the Solid-Fluid Coupling Effect |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |