突变视角下地下深埋隧洞塌方风险耦合演化研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1494

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为有效预防地下深埋隧洞施工塌方事故,首先基于轨迹交叉理论,将隧洞塌方风险因素分为人、物2类,分析并建立风险指标体系;然后运用改进的变权层次分析法(AHP)确定各指标综合权重,建立风险耦合突变模型,计算耦合度,并分析隧洞塌方风险在人、物风险因素作用下的演化途径,同时考虑随机扰动因子对隧洞塌方风险的影响,补充完善传统尖点模型;最后以白鹤滩水电站右岸尾水管检修闸门室为应用实例,验证风险耦合突变模型的有效性。结果表明:尾检室塌方风险的耦合度为0.856 2,处于强度耦合区间,因素间存在较强耦合效应;此外,随机扰动因子取值范围为(-1.287 8,-0.427 2)时,会导致不断滋生的潜在风险隐患失控且爆发,增加塌方事故的发生概率。

关键词: 突变理论, 地下深埋隧洞塌方, 风险耦合, 变权层次分析法(AHP), 风险演化

Abstract:

In order to effectively prevent the collapse accidents in the construction of deep underground tunnels, firstly, based on the trajectory intersection theory, the risk factors of tunnel collapse were divided into two categories: people and objects, and the risk index system was analyzed and established. Then, the improved variable weight AHP was used to determine the comprehensive weight of each index, established the risk coupling mutation model, calculated the coupling degree, and analyzed the evolution path of tunnel collapse risk under the influence of human and physical risk factors. At the same time, the influence of random disturbance factors on tunnel collapse risk was considered, and the traditional cusp model was supplemented and improved. Finally, the effectiveness of the risk coupling catastrophe model was verified by an application example of the tailrace pipe maintenance gate chamber on the right bank of Baihetan hydropower station. The results show that the coupling degree of the collapse risk in the tail inspection room is 0.856 2, which is in the strength coupling range, and there is a strong coupling effect among the factors. In addition, when the value range of the random disturbance factor is (-1.287 8, -0.427 2), it will lead to the continuous breeding of potential risks out of control and outbreak, increasing the probability of collapse accidents.

Key words: catastrophe theory, collapse accidents in construction of deep underground tunnels, risk coupling, variable analytic hierarchy process(AHP), risk evolution

江新, 王婧雯, 王耀威, 杨尚取, 姚成铭, 晋良海. 突变视角下地下深埋隧洞塌方风险耦合演化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 103-111.

JIANG Xin, WANG Jingwen, WANG Yaowei, YANG Shangqu, YAO Chengming, JIN Lianghai. Study on coupling evolution of collapse risk of deep underground tunnel from perspective of catastrophe[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 103-111.

图/表 10

图1

图2

表1

表2

4类常见的突变模型

突变类型	状态变量	控制变量	势函数	归一公式
折叠型	1	1	$V (x) = x 3 + p x$	$X p = p 12$
尖点型	1	2	$V (x) = x 4 + p x 2 + q x$	$X p, X q = q 13$
燕尾型	1	3	$V (x) = x 5 + p x 3 + q x 2 + r x$	$X p, X q, X r = r 14$
蝴蝶型	1	4	$V (x) = x 6 + p x 4 + q x 3 + r x 2 + s x$	$X p, X q, X r, X s = s 15$

表2

表3

表4

图3

图4

图5

表5

隧洞施工系统安全状态区域划分

u和v的风险耦合度范围	范围	安全区域划分
u>0	Δ>0	稳定
u<0;v<- $- 827 u 3 12$ , v> $- 827 u 3 12$	Δ>0	稳定
u<0;v=± $- 827 u 3 12$	Δ=0	临界稳定
u<0;- $- 827 u 3 12$ <v< $- 827 u 3 12$	Δ<0	不稳定

表5

参考文献 17

[1]	洪开荣, 冯欢欢. 近2年我国隧道及地下工程发展与思考(2019—2020年)[J]. 隧道建设:中英文,2021, 41(8):1259-1280.
	HONG Kairong, FENG Huanhuan. Development and thinking of tunnels and underground engineering in China in recent 2 years (from 2019 to 2020)[J]. Tunnel Construction, 2021, 41(8): 1259-1280.
[2]	杜雷功. 长大深埋水工隧洞设计关键技术研究与实践[J]. 水利水电技术, 2017, 48(10):1-9.
	DU Leigong. Study and practice on key design techniques for long deeply buried hydraulic tunnel[J]. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, 2017, 48(10): 1-9.
[3]	王旺盛, 陈长生, 王家祥, 等. 滇中引水工程香炉山深埋长隧洞主要工程地质问题[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2020, 37(9):154-159.
	WANG Wangsheng, CHEN Changsheng, WANG Jiaxiang, et al. Major engineering geological problems of Xianglushan deep-buried long tunnel in central Yunnan water diversion project[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2020, 37(9): 154-159.
[4]	王婧, 靳春玲, 贡力, 等. 基于可变模糊集理论的铁路隧道塌方风险评价[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2021, 18(5):1364-1372.
	WANG Jing, JIN Chunling, GONG Li, et al. Risk assessment of railway tunnel collapse based on variable fuzzy set theory[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 1364-1372.
[5]	仝跃, 岳瑶, 黄宏伟, 等. 钻爆法施工隧道塌方风险量化评估模型及其应用[J]. 土木与环境工程学报:中英文, 2022, 44(5):46-56.
	TONG Yue, YUE Yao, HUANG Hongwei, et al. Establishment and application of a quantitative assessment model of collapse risk in tunnel excavated by the drilling and blasting method[J]. Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 44(5): 46-56.
[6]	SENENT S, JIMENEZ R. A tunnel face failure mechanism for layered ground, considering the possibility of partial collapse[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2015, 47: 182-192. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2014.12.014
[7]	孟超, 李晓萌, 孙玉岭, 等. 基于ISM和信息熵的铁路隧道塌方风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(增1):64-70.
	MENG Chao, LI Xiaomeng, SUN Yuling, et al. Risk analysis of railway tunnel collapse based on ISM and entropy-weighted method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(S1): 64-70. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.S1.012
[8]	李燕, 靳春玲, 贡力, 等. 基于熵理论-可拓云模型的引水隧洞塌方风险评价[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2022, 39(2):70-76,81.
	LI Yan, JIN Chunling, GONG Li. Risk assessment of water diversion tunnel collapse based on entropy theory and extension cloud model[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2022, 39(2): 70-76,81.
[9]	吴大勇. 小寨山隧道洞口段塌方成因分析及变形预测[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2020, 37(9):79-86,95.
	WU Dayong. Stability analysis and deformation prediction for collapsed segment of Xiaozhaishan tunnel entrance[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2020, 37(9): 79-86,95.
[10]	李珏, 韩梅. 建筑坍塌事故发生机理的尖点突变模型及应用[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2022, 19(9):2766-2775.
	LI Jue, HAN Mei. Cusp catastrophe model of construction collapse accident mechanism and its application[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 2766-2775.
[11]	赵旭, 胡斌. 基于突变理论的企业员工反生产行为研究[J]. 管理科学, 2012, 25(4):44-55.
	ZHAO Xu, HU Bin. Research on staff counterproductive work behaviors based on catastrophe theory[J]. Journal of Management Science, 2012, 25(4): 44-55.
[12]	闫文周, 门雪, 杨翻艳. 基于相互作用矩阵的地铁施工风险评价[J]. 武汉大学学报:工学版, 2019, 52(9):796-801.
	YAN Wenzhou, MEN Xue, YANG Fanyan. Risk assessment of metro construction based on interaction matrix[J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2019, 52(9): 796-801.
[13]	SL 279—2016, 水工隧洞设计规范[S].
	SL 279-2016, Specification for design of hydraulic tunnel[S].
[14]	SL 764—2018, 水工隧洞安全监测技术规范[S].
	SL 764-2018, Technical specification for safety monitoring of hydraulic tunnels[S].
[15]	李德清, 赵彩霞, 李洪兴. 状态变权向量的等效分析以及一类均衡函数的构造[J]. 模糊系统与数学, 2004, 18(2):83-88.
	LI Deqing, ZHAO Caixia, LI Hongxing. Equivalent analysis of state variable weight vectors and construction of a class of equilibrium functions[J]. Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, 2004, 18(2):83-88.
[16]	王硕, 沈振中, 张文兵, 等. 一种分析大坝安全状况的改进变权层次分析法[J]. 水利水电科技进展, 2022, 42(3):97-103.
	WANG Shuo, SHEN Zhenzhong, ZHANG Wenbing. An improved variable weight analytic hierarchy process for dam safety analysis[J]. Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources, 2022, 42(3): 97-103.
[17]	凌复华. 突变理论及其应用[M]. 上海: 上海交通大学出版社, 1987: 1-225.

风险等级	风险描述	分值
Ⅰ	可忽略风险,不会出现系统失效,允许发生	[90,100]
Ⅱ	可接受风险,系统失效概率极低,允许在一定条件下发生	[70,90)
Ⅲ	一般风险,系统失效率比较低,不愿意发生	[50,70)
Ⅳ	较高风险,系统失效的可能性增大,不可接受	[30,50)
Ⅴ	高风险,系统失效的概率非常高,完全不能接受	[0,30)

y	10	20	30	40	50	55	60	65
z	0.898 8	0.927 1	0.944 5	0.951 2	0.957 2	0.967 3	0.971 6	0.975 7
y	70	75	80	85	90	95	98	100
z	0.982 9	0.986 2	0.989 2	0.992 1	0.994 9	0.997 5	0.999 0	1.000 0

底层指标	常权权重	变权权重	变权综合权重	权重变化值/%	得分值
D₂₄₁	0.179 5	0.417 5	0.134 3	-25.17	15.2
D₂₄₃	0.084 7	0.324 1	0.104 3	23.07	25.0
D₂₄₂	0.039 2	0.146 4	0.047 1	20.12	24.4
D₂₄₄	0.018 3	0.112 0	0.036 1	96.92	40.0
D₂₂₃	0.151 9	0.717 1	0.168 1	10.67	35.8
D₂₂₁	0.053 9	0.149 2	0.035 0	-35.08	21.0
D₂₂₂	0.028 6	0.133 7	0.031 3	9.43	35.4
D₂₃₂	0.089 5	0.551 7	0.092 6	3.50	43.0
D₂₃₁	0.047 0	0.249 6	0.041 9	-10.94	37.0
D₂₃₄	0.020 0	0.121 1	0.020 3	1.57	42.2
D₂₃₃	0.011 3	0.077 5	0.013 0	15.05	47.8
D₁₂₃	0.049 3	0.497 7	0.044 0	-10.79	35.6
D₁₂₄	0.023 3	0.250 8	0.022 2	-4.77	38.0
D₁₂₂	0.012 5	0.137 3	0.012 1	-3.27	38.6
D₁₂₁	0.008 4	0.114 3	0.010 1	20.79	48.2
D₂₁₁	0.050 3	0.827 8	0.055 5	10.37	64.4
D₂₁₂	0.016 8	0.172 2	0.011 6	-31.11	40.2
D₁₁₃	0.043 5	0.766 3	0.037 5	-13.79	35.0
D₁₁₁	0.032 6	0.767 9	0.033 3	2.38	75.2
D₁₁₆	0.014 1	0.574 3	0.012 6	-10.74	62.6
D₁₁₄	0.005 4	0.233 7	0.011 4	110.34	85.4
D₁₁₂	0.010 9	0.232 1	0.010 1	-7.15	68.2
D₁₁₇	0.006 2	0.332 3	0.007 3	17.49	82.4
D₁₁₅	0.001 6	0.093 4	0.002 0	26.62	88.8