In-situ Stress Measurement and Its Application of a Deep-buried Tunnel in Zheduo Mountain, West Sichuan

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2021.018

Abstract

Abstract:

Characteristics of present stress state at a deep-buried tunnel in Zheduo Mountain (west Sichuan) are analyzed based on in-situ stress measurement results at 196-650 m depths using the hydraulic fracturing me-thod. The measured results show that the stress state is dominated by horizontal principal stress, which increases linearly with depth and with higher gradient than the Chinese mainland background value. Reverse stress regime (S_H>S_h>S_v) is dominant overall within the measurement depth. The stress-release zone is at 389.50-560.50 m depth, and the stress regime is mainly strike-slip with relative principal stress magnitude of S_H>S_v>S_h. The lateral pressure coefficients and the ratio of maximum and minimum horizontal principal stress corresponds approximately with the variation characteristics of Chinese mainland. The fracture impression results reveal that the maximum horizontal principal stress is predominantly WNW, consistent with the regional stress field and mechanical mechanism reflected by the surrounding active faults. Stress field in the study area is mainly controlled by the ongoing India-Asia continent-continent collision and the compressive tectonics from the growing Tibetan Plateau onto the rigid Sichuan Basin. The test borehole is nearly critically stressed in the current stress state. The optimal-orientated plane or special section of the exiting faults may experience instability sliding with the continuous stress accumulation. Subsequently, tunnel stability from the in-situ stress perspective is discussed. The results reveal that the deep-buried tunnel favors medium-strong rock-burst due to strong in-situ stress state and deep burial, and the optimized design and constructive protection should be focused.

Key words: hydraulic fracturing, in-situ stress measurement, stress state, fault frictional sliding, deep-buried tunnel, stability

CLC Number:

P554
P642

XU Zhengxuan, MENG Wen, GUO Changbao, ZHANG Peng, ZHANG Guangze, SUN Mingqian, CHEN Qunce, CHEN Yu. In-situ Stress Measurement and Its Application of a Deep-buried Tunnel in Zheduo Mountain, West Sichuan[J]. Geoscience, 2021, 35(01): 114-125.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1 Tectonic map and seismicity in the study area and its surrounding areas

Fig.2 Data records of hydraulic fracturing (depth=560 m)

Fig.3 Values of PS calculated by different methods ((a),data in the rectangle indicates that there is a large difference from the values obtained by other methods and do not participate in the calculation of the mean PS)and final values of PS(b)

Fig.4 Results of rock mechanical tests

Table 1 Results of hydraulic fracturing measurement

序号	深度 /m	主应力/MPa			K_Hv	K_hv	K_av	K_Hh	S_H方向
序号	深度 /m	S_H	S_h	S_v	K_Hv	K_hv	K_av	K_Hh	S_H方向
1	196.5	9.32	5.92	5.34	1.74	1.11	1.43	1.58
2	270.5	14.95	10.23	7.36	2.03	1.39	1.71	1.46
3	330.0	20.85	12.45	8.98	2.32	1.39	1.85	1.68
4	389.5	16.28	9.93	10.59	1.54	0.94	1.24	1.64
5	458.5	12.92	9.74	12.47	1.04	0.78	0.91	1.33
6	540.0	17.79	12.32	14.69	1.21	0.84	1.02	1.44
7	560.5	11.88	9.08	15.25	0.78	0.60	0.69	1.31
8	642.0	35.68	19.59	17.46	2.04	1.12	1.58	1.82	N84°W

Fig.5 Distribution of principal stresses with depth (horizontal lines are error bars; regression equations of Chinese mainland are referred to Yang et al.[30])

Fig.6 Distribution of lateral pressure coefficients and the ratio of horizontal principal stresses with depth (fitting curves and regression equations are analyzed based on in-situ stress measurements in upper crust of Chinese mainland[32] )

Fig.7 Distribution map of stress in the test borehole and surrounding areas of the study area

Fig.8 Dependence of the maximum shear stress on the effective mean principal stress

Fig.9 Distributions of principal stress differences with depth

Table 2 Results of main discriminating methods for rockbrust[42,43]

Russenes判别法		Hoek判别法		综合判别法
$σ θ max$ / R_c	结果	$σ θ max$ / R_c	结果	$σ θ max$ / R_c	结果
<0.20	无岩爆	0.34	少量片帮	<0.30	无岩爆
0.20(含)~0.30	弱岩爆	0.42	严重片帮	0.30(含)~0.50	弱岩爆
0.30(含)~0.55	中岩爆	0.56	需重型支护	0.50(含)~0.70(含)	中等岩爆
≥0.55	强岩爆	0.70	有严重岩爆	>0.70	强烈岩爆

Table 2 Results of main discriminating methods for rockbrust[42,43]

Russenes判别法		Hoek判别法		综合判别法
$σ θ max$ / R_c	结果	$σ θ max$ / R_c	结果	$σ θ max$ / R_c	结果
<0.20	无岩爆	0.34	少量片帮	<0.30	无岩爆
0.20(含)~0.30	弱岩爆	0.42	严重片帮	0.30(含)~0.50	弱岩爆
0.30(含)~0.55	中岩爆	0.56	需重型支护	0.50(含)~0.70(含)	中等岩爆
≥0.55	强岩爆	0.70	有严重岩爆	>0.70	强烈岩爆

Fig.10 Rockbrust analysis of deep-buried tunnel under different buried depths in Zheduo Mountain

Table 3 Rockbrust analysis of deep-buried tunnel under different buried depths and tunnel axial directions in Zheduo Mountain

埋深/m	最大水平主应力方向	隧道轴向	应力值/MPa			σ_n	$σ θ max$	$σ θ max$ / R_c	岩爆
埋深/m	最大水平主应力方向	隧道轴向	S_H	S_h	S_v	σ_n	$σ θ max$	$σ θ max$ / R_c	岩爆
0 500	N84°W	N6°E0	28.21	16.05	13.60	28.21	71.02	0.99	强烈
		N36°E				25.17	61.91	0.86	强烈
		N66°E				19.09	43.68	0.61	中等
		N96°E				16.05	34.56	0.48	弱
1 000	N84°W	N6°E	56.81	30.30	27.20	56.81	143.22	1.99	强烈
		N36°E				50.18	123.35	1.71	强烈
		N66°E				36.93	083.59	1.16	强烈
		N96°E				30.30	063.71	0.88	中等

Table 3 Rockbrust analysis of deep-buried tunnel under different buried depths and tunnel axial directions in Zheduo Mountain

埋深/m	最大水平主应力方向	隧道轴向	应力值/MPa			σ_n	$σ θ max$	$σ θ max$ / R_c	岩爆
埋深/m	最大水平主应力方向	隧道轴向	S_H	S_h	S_v	σ_n	$σ θ max$	$σ θ max$ / R_c	岩爆
0 500	N84°W	N6°E0	28.21	16.05	13.60	28.21	71.02	0.99	强烈
		N36°E				25.17	61.91	0.86	强烈
		N66°E				19.09	43.68	0.61	中等
		N96°E				16.05	34.56	0.48	弱
1 000	N84°W	N6°E	56.81	30.30	27.20	56.81	143.22	1.99	强烈
		N36°E				50.18	123.35	1.71	强烈
		N66°E				36.93	083.59	1.16	强烈
		N96°E				30.30	063.71	0.88	中等

References 45

[1]	ZANG A, STEPHANSSON O. Stress Field of the Earth’s Crust[M]. London: Springer, 2010.
[2]	HAIMSON B C, CORNET F H. ISRM suggested methods for rock stress estimation—Part 3: hydraulic fracturing (HF) and/or hydraulic testing of pre-existing fractures (HTPF)[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2003,40(7/8):1011-1020. DOI URL
[3]	陈群策, 丰成君, 孟文, 等. “5.12”汶川地震后龙门山断裂带东北段现今地应力测量结果分析[J]. 地球物理学报, 2012,55(12):3923-3932. DOI URL
[4]	MENG W, CHEN Q C, ZHAO Z, et al. Characteristics and implications of the stress state in the Longmen Shan fault zone, eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Tectonophysics, 2015,656:1-19. DOI URL
[5]	MENG W, GUO C, ZHANG Y, et al. In situ stress measurements in the Lhasa Terrane, Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2016,90(6):2022-2035. DOI URL
[6]	丰成君, 陈群策, 谭成轩, 等. 广东核电站地应力测量及其应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2013,34(6):1745-1752.
[7]	邱君, 吴满路, 范桃园, 等. 郯庐断裂带苏鲁界地应力积累特征及地震危险性研究[J]. 地质学报, 2019,93(12):3249-3258.
[8]	郭啟良, 王成虎, 丁立丰, 等. 川西某水电工程气垫调压室原地应力及相关岩体特性参数的测量与应用分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2007,26(10):2070-2076.
[9]	徐则民, 黄润秋, 范柱国, 等. 长大隧道岩爆灾害研究进展[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2004,13(2):16-24.
[10]	谭以安. 岩爆形成机理研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 1989, ( 1):34-38,54.
[11]	朱艾斓, 徐锡伟, 周永胜, 等. 川西地区小震重新定位及其活动构造意义[J]. 地球物理学报, 2005,48(3):629-636.
[12]	WANG Y. Heat flow pattern and lateral variations of lithosphere strength in China mainland: Constraints on active deformation[J]. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 2001,126(3/4):121-146. DOI URL
[13]	徐锡伟, 张培震, 闻学泽, 等. 川西及其邻近地区活动构造基本特征与强震复发模型[J]. 地震地质, 2005,27(3):446-461.
[14]	罗志立, 龙学明. 龙门山造山带崛起和川西陆前盆地沉降[J]. 四川地质学报, 1992,12(1):1-17.
[15]	许志琴, 李化启, 侯立炜, 等. 青藏高原东缘龙门—锦屏造山带的崛起:大型拆离断层和挤出机制[J]. 地质通报, 2007,26(10):1262-1276.
[16]	李海兵, 付小芳, VAN DERWOERD Jérôme, 等. 汶川地震(M_s8.0)地表破裂及其同震右旋斜向逆冲作用[J]. 地质学报, 2008,82(12):1623-1643.
[17]	ALLEN C R, LOU Z L, QIAN H, et al. Field study of a highly active fault zone: the Xianshuihe fault of Southwestern China[J]. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1991,103(9):1178-1199. DOI URL
[18]	WANG S, FAN C, WANG G, et al. Late Cenozoic deformation along the northwestern continuation of the Xianshuihe fault system, Eastern Tibetan Plateau[J]. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 2008,120(3/4):312-327. DOI URL
[19]	许志琴, 侯立玮, 王宗秀, 等. 中国松潘—甘孜造山带的造山过程[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 1992.
[20]	李大虎, 丁志峰, 吴萍萍, 等. 鲜水河断裂带南东段的深部孕震环境与2014年康定M_s 6.3地震[J]. 地球物理学报, 2015,58(6):1941-1953.
[21]	周荣军, 雷建成, 黎小刚, 等. 晚第四纪以来大渡河断裂活动性的地质地貌判据[M] //.陈运泰.中国地震学会第八次学术大会论文摘要集. 北京:中国地震学会, 2000: 51.
[22]	王世元. 理塘—雅江断块活动性及工程稳定性评价[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学, 2007.
[23]	陈桂华, 徐锡伟, 闻学泽, 等. 川滇块体北—东边界活动构造带运动学转换与变形分解作用[J]. 地震地质, 2008,30(1):58-85.
[24]	王栋, 李天斌, 蒋良文, 等. 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, 2017,34(4):46-50.
[25]	易桂喜, 龙锋, 闻学泽, 等. 2014年11月22日康定M6.3级地震序列发震构造分析[J]. 地球物理学报, 2015,58(4):1205-1219. DOI URL
[26]	陈群策, 孙东生, 崔建军, 等. 雪峰山深孔水压致裂地应力测量及其意义[J]. 地质力学学报, 2019,25(5):853-865.
[27]	MOOS D, ZOBACK M D. Utilization of observations of well bore failure to constrain the orientation and magnitude of crustal stresses: Application to continental, Deep Sea Drilling Project,and Ocean Drilling Program boreholes[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1990,95(6):9305-9325. DOI URL
[28]	HAIMSON B C, DOE T W. State of Stress, permeability, and fractures in the Precambrian Granite of Northern Illinois[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1983,88(9):7355-7371. DOI URL
[29]	ZOBACK M D, HICKMAN S. In situ study of the physical mechanisms controlling induced seismicity at Monticello Reservoir, South Carolina[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1982,87(B8):6959-6974. DOI URL
[30]	杨树新, 姚瑞, 崔效锋, 等. 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, 2012,55(12):4207-4217. DOI URL
[31]	景锋, 盛谦, 张勇慧, 等. 中国大陆浅层地壳实测地应力分布规律研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2007,26(10):2056-2062.
[32]	王艳华, 崔效锋, 胡幸平, 等. 基于原地应力测量数据的中国大陆地壳上部应力状态研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 2012,55(9):3016-3027. DOI URL
[33]	谢富仁, 崔效锋, 赵建涛, 等. 中国大陆及邻区现代构造应力场分区[J]. 地球物理学报, 2004,47(4):654-662.
[34]	秦向辉, 陈群策, 谭成轩, 等. 龙门山断裂带西南段现今地应力状态与地震危险性分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2013,32(增):2870-2876.
[35]	臧绍先, 李昶, 魏荣强. 岩石圈流变机制的确定及影响岩石圈流变强度的因素[J]. 地球物理学进展, 2002,17(1):50-60.
[36]	JAEGER J C, COOK N G W. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics[M]. London: Chapman & Hall, 1979: 593.
[37]	ZOBACK M D, TOWNEND J. Implications of hydrostatic pore pressures and high crustal strength for the deformation of intraplate lithosphere[J]. Tectonophysics, 2001,336:19-30. DOI URL
[38]	ANDERSON E M. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Application to Britain[M]. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1951.
[39]	BYERLEE J. Friction of rocks[J]. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 1978,116(4/5) : 615-626. DOI URL
[40]	YIN Z M, RANALLI G. Critical stress difference, fault orientation and slip direction in anisotropic rocks under non-Andersonian stress systems[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 1992,14(2):237-244. DOI URL
[41]	张咸恭, 王思敬, 张倬元, 等. 中国工程地质学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000.
[42]	王元汉, 李卧东, 李启光, 等. 岩爆预测的模糊数学综合评判方法[J]: 岩石力学与工程学报, 1998,17(5):493-501.
[43]	刘元坤, 罗超文, 尹健民. 西部地应力测量与岩爆分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2003,24(增刊I):94-95.
[44]	廖椿庭. 根据地应力测量结果设计采场和巷道[J]. 中国地质科学院地质力学研究所所刊, 1981(1):37-47.
[45]	丰成君, 戚帮申, 王晓山, 等. 基于原地应力实测数据探讨华北典型强震区断裂活动危险性及其对雄安新区的影响[J]. 地学前缘, 2019,26(4):170-190.