Risk analysis of the geological hazards during urban tunnel construction in mountainous karst areas
-
摘要:
岩溶山区城市地下隧道工程施工过程中存在大量不确定地质灾害风险因素，由于成本和工期等原因无法详细查明所有水文地质和工程地质灾害风险源，导致各种灾害事故频发。目前对于隧道工程灾害评价方法多依靠专家打分，受人为主观因素影响大，且部分评价指标难以量化。为解决上述问题，依托岩溶山区轨道交通工程—贵阳市轨道交通2号线一期工程，统计其26段区间隧道施工过程中灾害发生位置、类型，仅选取明显相关地质灾害风险因素作为评价因素，根据灾害类型和地质灾害风险因素的位置关系反演出灾害发生频率与地质灾害风险因素间的耦合关系，建立岩溶山区城市隧道工程风险灾害评价体系。评价结果表明灾害发生频率与评价体系分段结果吻合程度均在69%以上，评价体系能够较好预测灾害发生频率。
Abstract:Construction of urban tunnel engineering in mountainous karst regions involves a plethora of uncertain geological risk factors. Due to cost and schedule constraints, hydrogeological and engineering geological risk sources cannot be identified in detail, leading to frequent disasters. Expert scoring, which is influenced by human subjectivity, is a common method for disaster evaluation in tunnel engineering, and some evaluation indicators are difficult to quantify. In order to address these issues, Guiyang rail transit line 2 Phase I project was selected as a case study to establish a risk disaster evaluation system for urban tunnel engineering in mountainous karst regions. The location and type of the disasters during construction were recorded for 26 running tunnels, and geological risk factors that were significantly correlated were selected as evaluation factors. The coupling relationship between the frequency of disaster occurrence and the geological risk factors was inverted, leading to the establishment of the risk disaster evaluation system of urban tunnel engineering in mountainous karst region. The evaluation results demonstrate that the degree of consistency between the frequency of disaster occurrence and the segmentation results of the evaluation system is more than 69%, indicating that the evaluation system is capable of predicting the frequency of disaster occurrence effectively.
-
Key words:
- mountainous karst region /
- tunnel engineering /
- risk evaluation /
- disaster frequency /
- back analysis
-
-
表 1 灾害数量统计
Table 1. Satistics of Disaster quantity
灾害类型 发生次数 占比/% 涌水涌泥（坍塌） 86 47.5 地面塌陷（脱空） 71 39.2 管道破损 22 12.2 建（构）筑物沉降变形 2 1.1 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 涌水涌泥（坍塌）灾害次数统计
Table 2. Statistics of gushing water and bursting mud（collapse） disaster occurrences
岩土分界面与拱顶距离/m 次数 地下水位线与
拱顶距离/m次数 高于拱顶0～4 18 高于拱顶0～4 12 高于拱顶4～8 13 高于拱顶4～8 18 高于拱顶8以上 39 高于拱顶8以上 42 低于拱顶0～4 6 低于拱顶0～4 14 低于拱顶4以上 10 低于拱顶4以上 0
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 涌水涌泥（坍塌）灾害评价因素评分标准和权重
Table 3. Scoring criteria and weighting table for gushing water and bursting mud（collapse） risk evaluation factors
评价因素分级 分值计算 权重 岩土分界面高于拱顶：0～4 m和4～8 m 10-平均距离 0.50 岩土分界面低于拱顶：0～4 m 5-平均距离 岩土分界面高于拱顶超过8 m或低于拱顶超过4 m 0 地下水位线高于拱顶：0～8 m 10-平均距离 0.35 地下水位线低于拱顶：0～4 m 5-平均距离 地下水位线高于拱顶超过8 m或低于拱顶超过4 m 0 岩溶发育等级强 8.3 0.15 岩溶发育等级中 5.1 岩溶发育等级弱 1.8 注：当岩土分界面高于拱顶超过8 m或低于拱顶超过4 m时，地下水位线与拱顶距离评价因素分值直接取0。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 地面塌陷（脱空）灾害评价因素评分标准和权重
Table 4. Scoring criteria and weighting table for surface collapse（void） risk evaluation factors
评价因素分级 分值 权重 岩溶发育等级强 8.3 0.55 岩溶发育等级中 5.1 岩溶发育等级弱 1.8 涌水涌泥（坍塌）灾害 涌水涌泥（坍塌）评分结果 0.45
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 管道破损灾害风险分级标准
Table 5. Pipeline breakage disaster risk classification standards
风险因素分级 风险等级 地面塌陷（脱空）灾害风险等级为一级，
且一级分段长度大于100 m一级 其他情况均为三级 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 七机路口站—云峰路站区间隧道分段
Table 6. The running tunnel section of Qiji-Yunfeng station
岩土分界面与拱顶距离/m 里程 里程代号 高于拱顶0～4 YDK10+273.3～YDK10+462.5 1 YDK10+632.4～YDK10+745.3 3 高于拱顶4～8 YDK10+462.5～YDK10+632.4 2 YDK10+745.3～YDK10+809.5 4 低于拱顶0～4 YDK10+809.5～YDK11+018.3 5 低于拱顶超过4 YDK11+018.3～YDK11+182.2 6
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 七机路口站—云峰路站区间隧道涌水涌泥（坍塌）灾害风险评价结果
Table 7. The evaluation of gushing water and bursting mud（collapse） on Qiji-Yunfeng station running tunnel
里程
代号岩土分界面与拱顶平均距离 地下水与拱顶平均距离 岩溶发育等级 评价结果 风险等级 平均距离/m 分值 权重 平均距离/m 分值 权重 等级 分值 权重 1 高于拱顶2.6 7.4 0.5 高于拱顶5.9 4.1 0.35 强 8.3 0.15 6.4 一级 2 高于拱顶5.4 4.6 高于拱顶6.3 3.7 强 8.3 4.8 二级 3 高于拱顶3.6 6.4 高于拱顶6.2 3.8 强 8.3 5.8 一级 4 高于拱顶5.4 4.6 高于拱顶6.0 4 强 8.3 4.9 二级 5 低于拱顶2.1 2.9 高于拱顶4.5 5.5 强 8.3 4.6 二级 6 低于拱顶超过4 0 − 0 强 8.3 1.2 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 8 七机路口站—云峰路站区间隧道地面塌陷（脱空）灾害风险评价结果
Table 8. The evaluation of surface collapse（void） on Qiji -Yunfeng station running tunnel
里程代号 岩溶发育等级 涌水涌泥（坍塌） 评价
结果风险
等级等级 分值 权重 分值 权重 1 强 8.3 0.55 6.4 0.45 7.4 一级 2 强 8.3 4.8 6.7 一级 3 强 8.3 5.8 7.2 一级 4 强 8.3 4.9 6.8 一级 5 强 8.3 4.6 6.6 一级 6 强 8.3 1.2 5.1 二级
下载: 导出CSV
表 9 七机路口站—云峰路站区间隧道管道破损灾害风险评价结果
Table 9. The evaluation of pipeline damage on Qiji-Yunfeng station running tunnel
里程代号 地面塌陷（脱空）风险等级 长度/m 风险等级 1 一级 189.2 一级 2 一级 170.0 一级 3 一级 112.9 一级 4 一级 64.2 三级 5 一级 208.8 一级 6 二级 163.9 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 10 水井坡站—长岭路站区间隧道分段
Table 10. The geological summary of running tunnel section Shuijing-Changling station
岩土界面与拱顶距离/m 里程 里程代号 高于拱顶0～4 ZDK20+167.8～ZDK20+311.8 1 高于拱顶4～8 ZDK20+683.4～ZDK20+898.3 3 高于拱顶8以上 ZDK20+311.8～ZDK20+683.4 2
下载: 导出CSV
表 11 水井坡站—长岭路站区间隧道涌水涌泥（坍塌）灾害风险评价结果
Table 11. The evaluation of gushing water and bursting mud（collapse） on Shuijing-Changling station running tunnel
里程代号 岩土分界面与拱顶平均距离 地下水与拱顶平均距离 岩溶发育等级 评价
结果风险
等级平均距离/m 分值 权重 平均距离/m 分值 权重 等级 分值 权重 1 高于拱顶1.8 8.2 0.5 高于拱顶0.9 9.1 0.35 强 8.3 0.15 8.5 一级 2 高于拱顶8.1 0 高于拱顶2.9 0 强 8.3 1.2 三级 3 高于拱顶7 3 高于拱顶6.6 3.4 强 8.3 3.9 二级
下载: 导出CSV
表 12 水井坡站—长岭路站区间隧道地面塌陷（脱空）灾害风险评价结果
Table 12. The evaluation of surface collapse（void） on Shuijing-Changling station running tunnel
里程
代号岩溶发育等级 涌水涌泥（坍塌） 评价
结果风险
等级等级 分值 权重 分值 权重 1 强 8.3 0.55 8.5 0.45 8.4 一级 2 强 8.3 1.2 5.1 二级 3 强 8.3 3.9 6.3 二级
下载: 导出CSV
表 13 水井坡站—长岭路站区间隧道管道破损灾害风险评价结果
Table 13. The evaluation of pipeline damage on Shuijing-Changling station running tunnel
里程代号 地面塌陷（脱空）风险等级 长度/m 风险等级 1 一级 144.0 一级 2 二级 371.6 三级 3 二级 214.9 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 14 阳明祠站—省医站区间隧道分段
Table 14. The running tunnel section of Yangmingci-Provincial hospital station running tunnel
岩土界面与拱顶距离/m 里程 里程
代号高于拱顶0～4 ZDK34+897.8～ZDK34+971.2 3 低于拱顶0～4 ZDK34+793.7～ZDK34+897.8 2 高于拱顶8 ZDK34+636.7～ZDK34+793.7 1 ZDK34+971.2～ZDK35+191.4 4
下载: 导出CSV
表 15 阳明祠站—省医站区间隧道涌水涌泥（坍塌）灾害风险评价结果
Table 15. The evaluation of gushing water and bursting mud（collapse） on Yangmingci-Provincial hospital station running tunnel
里程
代号岩土分界面与拱顶平均距离 地下水与拱顶平均距离 岩溶发育等级 评价结果 风险
等级平均距离/m 分值 权重 平均距离（m） 分值 权重 等级 分值 权重 1 高于拱顶8 0 0.5 0 0 0.35 中 5.1 0.15 0.8 三级 2 低于拱顶1.9 3.1 低于拱顶2.4 2.6 中 5.1 3.2 二级 3 高于拱顶2.3 7.7 低于拱顶2.8 2.2 中 5.1 5.4 一级 4 高于拱顶8 0 0 0 中 5.1 0.8 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 16 阳明祠站—省医站区间隧道地面塌陷（脱空）灾害风险评价结果
Table 16. The evaluation of surface collapse（void） on Yangmingci -Provincial hospital station
里程
代号岩溶发育等级 涌水涌泥（坍塌） 评价
结果风险
等级等级 分值 权重 分值 权重 1 中 5.1 0.55 0.8 0.45 3.2 三级 2 中 5.1 3.2 4.2 二级 3 中 5.1 5.4 5.2 二级 4 中 5.1 0.8 3.2 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 17 阳明祠站—省医站区间隧道管道破损灾害风险评价结果
Table 17. The evaluation of pipeline damage on Yangmingci-Provincial station
里程代号 地面塌陷（脱空）风险等级 长度/m 风险等级 1 三级 157.0 三级 2 二级 104.1 三级 3 二级 73.4 三级 4 三级 220.2 三级
下载: 导出CSV
表 18 灾害风险等级与灾害发生频率
Table 18. Disaster risk level and frequency of disasters
灾害类型 风险等级 灾害发生频率/（m·处−1） 涌水涌泥（坍塌） 一级 0～51 二级 51～200 三级 >200 地面塌陷（脱空） 一级 0～83 二级 83～210 三级 >210 管道破损 一级 0～270 三级 >270
下载: 导出CSV
表 19 与实际灾害发生频率相符的区间隧道长度占比
Table 19. Percentage of running tunnel length corresponds to the actual disaster frequency
灾害类型 与实际发生灾害
频率相符的
区间长度/m区间隧道总长度/m 准确率占比/％ 涌水涌泥（坍塌） 16978.8 23254.2 73.0 地面塌陷（脱空） 16038.8 23254.2 69.0 管道破损 21167.2 23254.2 91.0
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 黄亮,赵卫权,吕思思,等. 喀斯特洞穴空间分布与河网密度关系研究—以贵州省为例[J]. 中国岩溶,2020,39(1):127 − 136. [HUANG Liang,ZHAO Weiquan,LYU Sisi,et al. Study on the relationship between spatial distribution of karst caves and drainage density:An example of Guizhou Province[J]. Carsologica Sinica,2020,39(1):127 − 136. (in Chinese with English abstract)
HUANG Liang, ZHAO Weiquan, LYU Sisi, et al. Study on the relationship between spatial distribution of Karst caves and drainage density: an example of Guizhou Province[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2020, 39（1）: 127-136. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[2] 李红卫. 溶洞对贵阳轨道交通工程隧道影响的数值分析[J]. 土木工程与管理学报,2017,34(4):24 − 29. [LI Hongwei. Numerical simulation of the influence of cave on Guiyang railway tunnel[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,2017,34(4):24 − 29. (in Chinese with English abstract)
LI Hongwei. Numerical simulation of the influence of cave on Guiyang railway tunnel[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2017, 34（4）: 24-29. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[3] 张文,武科,刘国强,等. 城市地铁隧道岩溶地质灾害预警与成因分析[J]. 水利与建筑工程学报,2015,13(2):42 − 46. [ZHANG Wen,WU Ke,LIU Guoqiang,et al. Geological disaster prediction and cause analysis of karst cave in Guiyang subway construction[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering,2015,13(2):42 − 46. (in Chinese with English abstract)
ZHANG Wen, WU Ke, LIU Guoqiang, et al. Geological disaster prediction and cause analysis of Karst cave in Guiyang subway construction[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, 2015, 13（2）: 42-46. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[4] 莫伟平. 岩溶地区涌水对地铁隧道轨道结构的影响及防治[J]. 城市轨道交通研究,2021,24(7):115 − 119. [MO Weiping. Impact and prevention of environmental water gushing on metro tunnel track structure in Karst areas[J]. Urban Mass Transit,2021,24(7):115 − 119. (in Chinese with English abstract)
MO Weiping. Impact and prevention of environmental water gushing on metro tunnel track structure in Karst areas[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2021, 24（7）: 115-119. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[5] LI Liping,LEI Ting,LI Shucai,et al. Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels and software development[J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences,2015,8(4):1843 − 1854. doi: 10.1007/s12517-014-1365-3
[6] 毛正君,杨绍战,朱艳艳,等. 基于F-AHP法的隧道突涌水风险等级评价[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报,2017,14(6):1332 − 1339. [MAO Zhengjun,YANG Shaozhan,ZHU Yanyan,et al. Risk grade evaluation of tunnel water inrush based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering,2017,14(6):1332 − 1339. (in Chinese with English abstract)
MAO Zhengjun, YANG Shaozhan, ZHU Yanyan, et al. Risk grade evaluation of tunnel water inrush based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2017, 14（6）: 1332-1339. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[7] 吴全立,王梦恕,殷明伦. 基于网络分析法盾构下穿隧道风险分析[J]. 地下空间与工程学报,2019,15(6):1881 − 1888. [WU Quanli,WANG Mengshu,YIN Minglun. Risk analysis on shield TBM crossing underneath existing tunnel based on analytic network process[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering,2019,15(6):1881 − 1888. (in Chinese with English abstract)
WU Quanli, WANG Mengshu, YIN Minglun. Risk analysis on shield TBM crossing underneath existing tunnel based on analytic network process[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2019, 15（6）: 1881-1888. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[8] NEZARAT H,SERESHKI F,ATAEI M. Ranking of geological risks in mechanized tunneling by using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP)[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,2015,50:358 − 364. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2015.07.019
[9] 张文泉,刘毓. 岩溶隧道突涌水危险性的多级模糊综合评价[J]. 西安科技大学学报,2016,36(2):187 − 192. [ZHANG Wenquan,LIU Yu. Multilevel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of water inrush in karst tunnels[J]. Journal of Xi’an University of Science and Technology,2016,36(2):187 − 192. (in Chinese with English abstract)
ZHANG Wenquan, LIU Yu. Multilevel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of water inrush in Karst tunnels[J]. Journal of Xi’an University of Science and Technology, 2016, 36（2）: 187-192. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[10] 匡星,白明洲,王成亮,等. 基于模糊评价方法的隧道岩溶突水地质灾害综合预警方法[J]. 公路交通科技,2010,27(11):100 − 103. [KUANG Xing,BAI Mingzhou,WANG Chengliang,et al. Research of comprehensive warning of water inrush hazards in karst tunnel based on fuzzy evaluation method[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development,2010,27(11):100 − 103. (in Chinese with English abstract)
KUANG Xing, BAI Mingzhou, WANG Chengliang, et al. Research of comprehensive warning of water inrush hazards in Karst tunnel based on fuzzy evaluation method[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2010, 27（11）: 100-103. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[11] 蒋国云. 深埋隧道岩溶突水安全风险评价模型研究[J]. 地下空间与工程学报,2012,8(2):274 − 279. [JIANG Guoyun. Study on the security risk assessment model of karst water burst in deep buried tunnel[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering,2012,8(2):274 − 279. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-0836.2012.02.009
JIANG Guoyun. Study on the security risk assessment model of Karst water burst in deep buried tunnel[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2012, 8（2）: 274-279. （in Chinese with English abstract） doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-0836.2012.02.009
[12] 何怡帆,李天斌,曹海洋. 隧道施工期岩爆危险性评价的属性识别模型及工程应用[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2020,47(2):102 − 111. [HE Yifan,LI Tianbin,CAO Haiyang. Attribute recognition model of fatalness assessment of rockburst in tunnel construction and its application[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology,2020,47(2):102 − 111. (in Chinese with English abstract)
HE Yifan, LI Tianbin, CAO Haiyang. Attribute recognition model of fatalness assessment of rockburst in tunnel construction and its application[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2020, 47（2）: 102-111. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[13] SOUSA R L. Risk analysis for tunnelling projects[D]. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.
[14] 王. 城市地铁隧道事故案例统计分析与风险评价方法研究[D]. 北京: 北京交通大学, 2018
WANG Gong. Study on accidents statistical analysis and risk assessment methods of urban subway tunnel[D]. Beijing: Beijing Jiaotong University, 2018. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[15] 王智伟,王利,黄观文,等. 基于BP神经网络的滑坡监测多源异构数据融合算法研究[J]. 地质力学学报,2020,26(4):575 − 582. [WANG Zhiwei,WANG Li,HUANG Guanwen,et al. Research on multi-source heterogeneous data fusion algorithm of landslide monitoring based on BP neural network[J]. Journal of Geomechanics,2020,26(4):575 − 582. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2020.26.04.050
WANG Zhiwei, WANG Li, HUANG Guanwen, et al. Research on multi-source heterogeneous data fusion algorithm of landslide monitoring based on BP neural network[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 2020, 26（4）: 575-582. （in Chinese with English abstract） doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2020.26.04.050
[16] 董英,张茂省,李宁,等. 城市地下空间开发利用的地质安全评价内容与方法[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2020,47(5):161 − 168. [DONG Ying,ZHANG Maosheng,LI Ning,et al. Methods and contents of geological safety evaluation for urban underground space development and utilization[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology,2020,47(5):161 − 168. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.16030/j.cnki.issn.1000-3665.201904060
DONG Ying, ZHANG Maosheng, LI Ning, et al. Methods and contents of geological safety evaluation for urban underground space development and utilization[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2020, 47（5）: 161-168. （in Chinese with English abstract） doi: 10.16030/j.cnki.issn.1000-3665.201904060
[17] KAMPMANN J, ESKESEN S D, SUMMERS J W. Risk assessment helps select the contractor for the Copenhagen metro system[C]//Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 98 on Tunnels and Metropolises, 1998, （1）: 123 − 128.
[18] 黄仁东,吴寒,张惕,等. 基于云模型的岩溶隧道涌水灾害危险性评价及其在青岩头隧道的应用[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2018,29(5):44 − 51. [HUANG Rendong,WU Han,ZHANG Ti,et al. Evaluation of water burst hazard in Karst tunnel based on cloud model and its application in Qingyantou Tunnel[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2018,29(5):44 − 51. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.2018.05.08
HUANG Rendong, WU Han, ZHANG Ti, et al. Evaluation of water burst hazard in Karst tunnel based on cloud model and its application in Qingyantou Tunnel[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2018, 29（5）: 44-51. （in Chinese with English abstract） doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.2018.05.08
[19] 李堃. 青岛地铁13号线区间隧道施工风险管理研究[D]. 青岛: 青岛理工大学, 2018
LI Kun. Study on construction risk management of Qingdao metro line 13 tunnel[D]. Qingdao: Qingdao Tehcnology University, 2018. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[20] 张飞. 贵阳市地铁1号线区间隧道施工安全风险评估[D]. 贵阳: 贵州大学, 2016
ZHANG Fei. Guiyang metro system line 1 tunnel construction safety risk assessment[D]. Guiyang: Guizhou University, 2016. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[21] 中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 城市轨道交通地下工程建设风险管理规范: GB 50652—2011[S]. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2012.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China. Code for risk management of underground works in urban rail transit: GB 50652—2011[S]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2012. (in Chinese)
[22] 冉光炯, 杨翘楚, 王健. 特长隧道隧址区三维地质模型构建方案[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2022, 52(3): 930-940.
RAN Guangjiong, YANG Qiaochu, WANG Jian. 3D geological modeling scheme for super long tunnel site[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 2022, 52(3): 930-940.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[23] 潘涛. 软土地区双线区间盾构隧道施工对周边地表以及建筑物沉降的影响[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2022,49(1):101 − 108. [PAN Tao. Influences of double-track shield tunnel construction on settlements of adjacent ground and buildings in a soft soil area[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology,2022,49(1):101 − 108. (in Chinese with English abstract)
PAN Tao. Influences of double-track shield tunnel construction on settlements of adjacent ground and buildings in a soft soil area[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2022, 49(1): 101 − 108. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24] 姜封国, 白丽丽, 宋敏, 等. 哈尔滨城市地铁大断面隧道施工稳定性分析[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版),2020,50(4):1419 − 1427. [JIANG Fengguo, BAI Lili, SONG Min, et al. Analysis on construction stability of large section tunnel of Harbin City Metro[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition),2020,50(4):1419 − 1427. (in Chinese with English abstract)
JIANG Fengguo, BAI Lili, SONG Min, et al. Analysis on construction stability of large section tunnel of Harbin City Metro[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition), 2020, 50(4): 1419 − 1427. (in Chinese with English abstract)
-
图(3)
表(19)
计量
- 文章访问数: 915
- PDF下载数: 37
- 施引文献: 0