Tectonic Stress Field and Engineering Influence of China-Nepal Railway Corridor

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2020.104

Abstract

Abstract:

The proposed China-Nepal railway is located in the India-Asia collisional-compressive front, which is characterized by regional active faulting, frequent earthquakes, strong neotectonic activities, and complex stress fields.Characteristics of the present-day stress field in the railway corridor and its effects on tunnel stabi-lities is analyzed based on the focal mechanism solutions and in-situ stress measurements. The results show that the local principal compressive stress at the seismogenic depths is ENE along the plate boundary, compared with the heterogeneous stress field inside the Plateau. The Chinese (Xigaze to Jilong) section is mainly in tensile-shear stress field, while the Nepali section is in compressive stress field controlled by the India-Asia collision. Given that there is no in-situ measurement in the China-Nepal railway corridor, we analyzed the shallow stress field based on the measured data in the neighboring areas. Stress regime in the shallow crust is generally conducive to reverse faulting, and the maximum horizontal principal stress is predominantly NE. Based on the distribution characteristics of principal stress direction, the China-Nepal Railway comprises six sections, and the possibility of the wallrock burst is discussed,considering both stress field analysis and σ_θ_max/R_c theory.We concluded that a larger angle between the maximum horizontal principal stress direction and the axial direction of the tunnel is detrimental to the wall rock stability:The greater the tunnel depth, the greater the rock burst possibility.Most sections of the China-Nepal railway intersect the maximum horizontal principal stress axis at a large angle or even nearly perpendicular. Rock bursts likely occur when the tunnel is deep, and major protection measures are required.This study provides scientific reference for railway engineering survey and routeselection.

Key words: Tibetan Plateau, China-Nepal railway, tectonic stress field, wall rock stability

CLC Number:

P553
P642

MENG Wen, GUO Changbao, MAO Bangyan, LU Haifeng, CHEN Qunce, XU Xueyuan. Tectonic Stress Field and Engineering Influence of China-Nepal Railway Corridor[J]. Geoscience, 2021, 35(01): 167-179.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1 Geological sketch of China-Nepal Railway Corridor ((a), modified after ref.[28] and http://data.earthquake.cn) and structure profile of the middle section of the Himalayan orogenic belt ((b), modified from refs.[18, 21])

Fig.2 Schematic diagrams of fault types and corresponding stress regimes and focal mechanism solutions (modified from refs. [30,34])

Fig.3 Focal mechanism solutions from the GCMT catalogue (Mw≥4.7, 1976-2019) in the study area (modified after ref.[28])

Fig.4 Distribution of the maximum horizontal principal stress derived from the focal mechanism solutions and in-situ stress measurements(modified after ref.[28])

Table 1 Results of in-situ stress measurements along/around the China-Nepal Railway Corridor

编号	测试深度/m	S_H/ MPa	S_h/ MPa	S_H 方位	参考文献
YBJ-p-1	13	10.4	8.4	N70°E	[50]
YBJ-p-2	12	5.7	2.8	N81°E
YBJ-p-3	12	6.6	4.6	N45°E
YBJ-p-4	11	3.3	2.5	N45°E
PYL	21.93	27.4	15.4	N35°E	[51]
	25.18	24.9	14.7
	27.13	24.7	14.6
YBJ-h	60	4.62	3.82		[52]
	85	4.30	3.82	N55°E
	113	6.02	4.82
	139	7.92	6.14
	165	6.75	6.16	N46°E
	209	10.67	8.39
	222	9.77	8.10
	243	11.06	9.20
	261	12.88	10.80	N65°E
	286	11.34	10.20	N53°E
QS	73.8	11.73	8.54		[52]
	115.8	14.36	9.03	N47°W
	122.3	14.15	8.63	N40°W
	134.8	12.07	7.65
LS	133	9.51	5.75		[53]
	170	13.01	6.80
	241	18.12	10.90
	283	17.53	10.31
	296	13.59	9.08
ND	117.0	5.45	3.42		[39]
	131.2	6.37	4.20
	146.5	9.25	6.00
	178.3	5.22	3.76
	190.8	6.83	4.48
	216.8	11.85	6.94	N12°E
	226.3	14.90	8.67
	247.2	14.02	8.50	N28°E
	273.3	12.97	7.83	N14°W
	295.8	9.53	6.15	N28°E
	370.0	23.40	14.52
	396.3	30.30	16.69
	463.7	28.84	16.25

Fig.5 Stress magnitude plots along/around the China-Nepal Railway Corridor

Fig.6 Variation in the orientations of the maximum horizontal stresses with depth along/around the China-Nepa Railway Corridor

Fig.7 Hypocenter distribution with depth of earthquakes (Mw≥4.7) in the study area

Table 2 Major discriminating methods of rockbrust

Russenes判别法^[71,72]			Hoek判别法^[71,72]			综合判别法^[70]
$σ θ max$ /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 Major discriminating methods of rockbrust

Russenes判别法^[71,72]			Hoek判别法^[71,72]			综合判别法^[70]
$σ θ max$ /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 3 Sections and corresponding orientations of the maximum principal stress of the China-Nepal Railway Corridor

分段编号	分段	最大主应力方向
A	日喀则―萨迦	NS
B	萨迦―定结	N4°W
C	定结―吉隆	N1°W
D	聂拉木县段	N5°W
E	吉隆―讷瓦果德段	N8°E
F	加德满都段	N12°E

Fig.8 Maximum horizontal principal stress along the China-Nepal Railway Corridor and railway segmentations based on the stress characteristics

Table 4 Results of wallrock burst at 500 m burial depth

铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	$σ θ max$ /R_c
铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	R_c=60 MPa	岩爆预判	R_c=100 MPa	岩爆预判
A	NS	EW	0	27.28	68.59	1.14	强烈	0.69	中等
B	N4°W	N30°E	56	19.75	46.01	0.77	强烈	0.46	轻微
C	N1°W	N85°W	6	27.16	68.23	1.14	强烈	0.68	中等
D	N5°W	N40°W	25	25.32	62.72	1.05	强烈	0.63	中等
E	N8°E	N10°W	72	17.38	38.88	0.65	中等	0.39	轻微
F	N12°E	N30°E	72	17.38	38.88	0.65	中等	0.39	轻微

Table 4 Results of wallrock burst at 500 m burial depth

铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	$σ θ max$ /R_c
铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	R_c=60 MPa	岩爆预判	R_c=100 MPa	岩爆预判
A	NS	EW	0	27.28	68.59	1.14	强烈	0.69	中等
B	N4°W	N30°E	56	19.75	46.01	0.77	强烈	0.46	轻微
C	N1°W	N85°W	6	27.16	68.23	1.14	强烈	0.68	中等
D	N5°W	N40°W	25	25.32	62.72	1.05	强烈	0.63	中等
E	N8°E	N10°W	72	17.38	38.88	0.65	中等	0.39	轻微
F	N12°E	N30°E	72	17.38	38.88	0.65	中等	0.39	轻微

Table 5 Results of wallrock burst at 1,000 m burial depth

铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	$σ θ max$ /R_c
铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	R_c=60 MPa	岩爆预判	R_c=100 MPa	岩爆预判
A	NS	EW	0	53.08	132.74	2.21	强烈	1.33	强烈
B	N4°W	N30°E	56	37.58	86.24	1.44	强烈	0.86	强烈
C	N1°W	N85°W	6	52.83	132.00	2.20	强烈	1.32	强烈
D	N5°W	N40°W	25	49.05	120.66	2.01	强烈	1.21	强烈
E	N8°E	N10°W	72	32.68	71.55	1.19	强烈	0.72	强烈
F	N12°E	N30°E	72	32.68	71.55	1.19	强烈	0.72	强烈

Table 5 Results of wallrock burst at 1,000 m burial depth

铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	$σ θ max$ /R_c
铁路区段	S_H方位	铁路轴向	S_H与铁路轴向法线夹角/(°)	σ_n/MPa	$σ θ max$ /MPa	R_c=60 MPa	岩爆预判	R_c=100 MPa	岩爆预判
A	NS	EW	0	53.08	132.74	2.21	强烈	1.33	强烈
B	N4°W	N30°E	56	37.58	86.24	1.44	强烈	0.86	强烈
C	N1°W	N85°W	6	52.83	132.00	2.20	强烈	1.32	强烈
D	N5°W	N40°W	25	49.05	120.66	2.01	强烈	1.21	强烈
E	N8°E	N10°W	72	32.68	71.55	1.19	强烈	0.72	强烈
F	N12°E	N30°E	72	32.68	71.55	1.19	强烈	0.72	强烈

References 73

[1]	孙先锋. 中尼铁路沿线活动断裂对地质选线的影响浅析[J]. 铁道标准设计, 2019,63(3):44-48.
[2]	姚志勇. 中尼铁路夏木德至加德满都段主要工程地质问题及地质比选[J]. 铁道标准设计, 2017,61(9):21-25.
[3]	李四光. 地壳构造与地壳运动[J]. 中国科学, 1973,3(4):400-429.
[4]	黄相宁, 康仲远, 张超, 等. 地应力变化与地震预报[J]. 中国地质科学院地质力学研究所所刊, 1982(3):154-169.
[5]	孙叶, 谭成轩, 杨贵生, 等. 中国区域地壳稳定性定量化评价与分区[J]. 地质力学学报, 1997,3(3):42-52.
[6]	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.
[7]	张鹏, 曲亚明, 郭长宝, 等. 西藏林芝地应力测量监测与尼泊尔M_s8.1级强震远场响应分析[J]. 现代地质, 2017,31(5):900-910.
[8]	KLEE G, RUMMEL F, WILLIAMS A. Hydraulic fracturing stress measurements in Hong Kong[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 1999,36 : 731-741.
[9]	白世伟, 李光煜. 二滩水电站坝区岩体应力场研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 1982,1(1):45-56.
[10]	孟文, 陈群策, 杜建军, 等. 新加坡地应力测量[J]. 地球物理学报, 2012,55(8):2611-2619.
[11]	吉锋, 郑罗斌, 周春宏. 四川锦屏二级电站高水头超深埋隧洞围岩质量分级快速评价方法[J]. 现代地质, 2015,29(2):428-433.
[12]	丰成君, 张鹏, 戚帮申, 等. 郯庐断裂带附近地壳浅层现今构造应力场[J]. 现代地质, 2017,31(1):46-70.
[13]	刘卓岩, 王成虎, 徐鑫, 等. 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, 2017,31(4):869-876.
[14]	张倬元, 王士天, 王兰生. 工程地质分析原理[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2016: 45-46.
[15]	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.
[16]	姚瑞, 杨树新, 谢富仁, 等. 青藏高原及周缘地壳浅层构造应力场量值特征分析[J]. 地球物理学报, 2017,60(6):2147-2158.
[17]	郭长宝, 张永双, 蒋良文, 等. 川藏铁路沿线及邻区环境工程地质问题概论[J]. 现代地质, 2017,31(5):877-889.
[18]	潘桂棠, 肖庆辉, 陆松年, 等. 中国大地构造单元划分[J]. 中国地质, 2009,36(1):1-28.
[19]	CATTIN R, AVOUAC J P. Modeling mountain building and the seismic cycle in the Himalaya of Nepal[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2000,105:13389-13407.
[20]	BETTINELLI P, AVOUAC J P, FLOUZAT M, et al. Plate motion of India and interseismic strain in the Nepal Himalaya from GPS and DORIS measurements[J]. Journal of Geodesy, 2006,80:567-589.
[21]	吴中海, 赵根模, 刘杰. 2015年尼泊尔M_s8.1地震构造成因及对青藏高原及对邻区未来强震趋势的影响[J]. 地质学报, 2016,90(6):1062-1085.
[22]	李水平. 喜马拉雅造山带现今地壳变形: GPS观测与模拟解释[D]. 武汉:中国地质大学(武汉), 2019.
[23]	尹安. 喜马拉雅造山带新生代构造演化:沿走向变化的构造几何形态、剥露历史和前陆沉积的约束[J]. 地学前缘, 2006,13(5):416-515.
[24]	许志琴, 杨经绥, 李海兵, 等. 印度-亚洲碰撞大地构造[J]. 地质学报, 2011,85(1):1-33.
[25]	BILLA R, LARSON K, FREYMUELLER J, et al. GPS measurements of present-day convergence across the Nepal Himalaya[J]. Nature, 1997,386:61-64
[26]	ADER T, AVOUAC J P, LIU-ZENG J, et al. Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on the Main Himalayan Thrust: Implications for seismic hazard[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2012,117:B04403. doi: 10.1029/2011JB009071.
[27]	KUMAR S, WESNOUSKY S G, JAYANGONDAPERUMAL R, et al. Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the northeastern Himalayan front, India: Timing, size, and spatial extent of great earthquakes[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: (Solid Earth), 2010,115:B12422.
[28]	邓起东, 张培震, 冉勇康, 等. 中国活动构造基本特征[J]. 中国科学(D辑), 2002,32(12):1020-1030.
[29]	ZANG A, STEPHANSSON O. Stress Field of the Earth’s Crust[M]. London: Springer, 2010.
[30]	ZOBACK M D. Reservoir Geomechanics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[31]	王成虎. 地应力主要测试和估算方法回顾与展望[J]. 地质论评, 2014,60(5):971-995.
[32]	ZOBACK M L, ZOBACK M D. State of stress in the conterminous United States[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1980,85:6113-6156.
[33]	ZOBACK M L, ZOBACK M D, ADAMS J, et al. Global patterns of tectonic stress, review article[J]. Nature, 1989,341:291-298. doi: 10.1038/341291a0.
[34]	ANDERSON E M. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation, with Application to Britain[M]. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1951.
[35]	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, 2003,40:1011-1020.
[36]	SJÖBERG J, CHRISTIANSSON R, HUDSON J A. ISRM Suggested Methods for rock stress estimation-Part 2: Overcoring methods[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2003,40(7/8) : 999-1010.
[37]	CHANG C, LEE J B, KANG T S. Interaction between regional stress state and faults: Complementary analysis of borehole in situ stress and earthquake focal mechanism in southeastern Korea[J]. Tectonophysics, 2010,485:164-177.
[38]	郭啟良, 赵仕广, 丁立丰, 等. 地下硐室围岩应力状态及相关参数测量结果的分析与评价[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2007,26(增):3361-3366.
[39]	孟文, 郭长宝, 张重远, 等. 青藏高原拉萨块体地应力测量及其意义[J]. 地球物理学报, 2017,60(6):2159-2171.
[40]	HAIMSON B C. Crustal stress in the Michigan basin[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1978,83(12):5857-5863.
[41]	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.
[42]	吴满路, 张重远. 新型压磁应力解除测量系统及其测试分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2016,35(增):3119-3126.
[43]	张重远, 吴满路, 陈群策, 等. 地应力测量方法综述[J]. 河南理工大学学报(自然科学版), 2012,31(3):305-310.
[44]	刘静, 纪晨, 张金玉, 等. 2015年4月25日尼泊尔M_w7.8级地震的孕震构造背景和特征[J]. 科学通报, 2015,60(27):2640-2655.
[45]	王卫民, 郝金来, 何建坤, 等. 2015年4月25日尼泊尔M_w7.9级地震震源过程[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 2015,45(9):1421-1426.
[46]	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.
[47]	吴中海, 叶培盛, 吴珍汉. 2008年10月6日西藏当雄M_s6.6级强震的地震烈度控震构造和发震机理[J]. 地质通报, 2009,28(6):713-725.
[48]	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.
[49]	李方全, 祁英男. 地壳应力随深度的变化规律[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 1988,7(4):301-309.
[50]	廖椿庭, 吴满路, 张春山, 等. 青藏高原昆仑山和羊八井现今地应力测量及其工程意义[J]. 地球学报, 2002,23(4):353-357.
[51]	王喜华, 赵志明, 尹建勋, 等. 雅鲁藏布江峡谷段盆因拉隧道岩爆预测[J]. 地球科学与环境学报, 2013,35(2):115-119.
[52]	WU Z H, CHEN Q C, BAROSH P J, et al. Stress rise precursor to earthquakes in the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Natural Science, 2013,5(8):46-55.
[53]	曹忠权, 谢平, 金花, 等. 雅鲁藏布江断裂带附近地应力场的变化特征[J]. 地球物理学进展, 2003,18(1):167-172.
[54]	MOLNAR P, TAPPONNIER P. Cenozoic tectonics of Asia: effects of a continental collision[J]. Science, 1975,189:419-426. DOI URL PMID
[55]	MOLNAR P, CAENT L. Fault plane solutions of earthquakes and active tectonics of the Tibetan Plateau and its margins[J]. Geophysical Journal International, 1989,99(1):123-154.
[56]	张培震, 沈正康, 王敏. 青藏高原及周边现今构造变形的运动学[J]. 地震地质, 2004,26(3):367-377.
[57]	GAN W J, ZHANG P Z, SHEN Z K, et al. Present-day crustal motion within the Tibetan Plateau inferred from GPS measurements[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2007,112:B08416.doi: 10.1029/2005JB004120.
[58]	张健, 石耀霖. 中国西部地区重力位能与板内变形动力[J]. 中国科学院研究生院学报, 2001,18(1):43-50.
[59]	张东宁, 许忠淮. 青藏高原南部上地壳正断层地震活动的一种可能解释[J]. 地震学报, 1995,17(2):188-195.
[60]	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.
[61]	RATSCHBACHER L, FRISCH W, LIU G, et al. Distributed deformation in southern and western Tibet during and after the India-Asia Collision[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 1994,99(10):19917-19945.
[62]	TAPPONNIER P, MERCIER J L, ARMIJO R, et al. Field evidence for active normal faulting in Tibet[J]. Nature, 1981,294:410-414.
[63]	TAPPONNIER P, ZHIQIN X, ROGER F, et al. Oblique stepwise rise and growth of the Tibet plateau[J]. Science, 2001,294:1671-1677.
[64]	张永双, 胡道功, 吴中海, 等. 滇藏铁路沿线地壳稳定性及重大工程地质问题[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2009: 196-198.
[65]	CHEN Q, FREYMUELLER J T, YANG Z, et al. Spatially variable extension in southern Tibet based on GPS measurements[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 2004,109:1-20.
[66]	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.
[67]	谭以安. 岩爆形成机理研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 1989(1):34-38.
[68]	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.
[69]	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):94-95.
[70]	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.
[71]	HOEK E, BROWN E T. Underground Excavation in Rock[M]. London: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1980.
[72]	侯发亮, 刘小明, 王敏强. 岩爆成因再分析及烈度划分探讨[M] //中国岩石力学与工程学会岩石动力学专业委员会.第三届全国岩石动力学学术会议论文集. 武汉: 武汉测绘科技大学出版社, 1992: 463-472.
[73]	谢富仁, 崔效锋. 中国及邻区现代构造应力场图 [M]. 北京: 中国地图出版社, 2015.