Safety evaluation and control of shield tunnel underpass buildings based on entropy weight cloud model

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.02.0643

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to solve the problems of incomplete index system, low accuracy of calculation results and weak applicability of control measures when evaluating the safety of shield tunneling underpasses, a method for evaluating the safety status of shield tunneling underpasses was studied based on entropy weight cloud model. By analyzing various factors affecting the safety status of the project, it was determined that overall safety level was jointly determined by the original safety level of building and disturbance effect of underpass construction process. An original safety status evaluation index system for buildings was established, which consisted of 13 indicators in three categories: the existing deformation resistance of the building, the healthy and intact state of the building, and the importance of building. A safety evaluation index system for underpass construction process was established, which consisted of 22 indicators in five categories: excavation face instability, displacement of soil on side of shield machine ring, subsequent soil consolidation, construction management level, and relationship between building and tunnel. The weights of each index were determined by entropy weight method, the digital characteristics of the index were determined based on the cloud model, safety level and development trend were determined by FSM algorithm, and the weighted fitting weight value was used to judge the primary and secondary risk control points. Taking a subway project under two buildings as an example, the index system and evaluation method were verified. The results show that original safety status of two buildings and the construction process under two buildings are generally safe, and overall risk is within an acceptable range. For secondary indicators that are not inherent attributes of the project, the factors with weighted fitting weight values exceeding the average level (0.04) are used as key control points, those between 0.02 and 0.04 are used as secondary control points, and those between 0 and 0.02 are used as general control points.

Key words: shield tunnel underpasses buildings, entropy weight method, cloud model, safety evaluation, control measures, fuzzy similarity measure(FSM), evaluation index system

CLC Number:

WANG Shangang, YU Qunzhou, YU Jingju. Safety evaluation and control of shield tunnel underpass buildings based on entropy weight cloud model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(2): 262-270.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Table 6

Fig.5

References 17

[1]	刘祥勇, 张鑫, 王军, 等. 盾构施工对邻近建筑物群结构影响评价[J]. 隧道与地下工程灾害防治, 2022, 4(3): 99-106.
	LIU Xiangyong, ZHANG Xin, WANG Jun, et al. Evaluation of shield tunneling-induced structural response[J]. Hazard Control in Tunnelling and Underground Engineering, 2022, 4(3): 99-106.
[2]	DING Zhi, WEI Xinjiang, ZHANG Xiao, et al. Analysis of the field monitoring data on soil movements and adjacent building settlement due to shield tunnelling[J]. Engineering Computations, 2019, 36(4): 1219-1237. doi: 10.1108/EC-07-2018-0314
[3]	KATEBI H, REZAEI A H, HAJIALILUE B M, et al. Assessment the influence of ground stratification, tunnel and surface buildings specifications on shield tunnel lining loads (by FEM)[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2015, 49: 67-78. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2015.04.004
[4]	ZAKHEM A M, NAGGAR H E. Three-dimensional investigation of how newly constructed buildings supported on raft foundations affect pre-existing tunnels[J]. Transportation Geotechnics, 2020, 22: DOI: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100324.
[5]	WU Hao, GAN Xiaolu, LIU Nianwu, et al. Analysis of tunneling-induced ground movements in spatially variable soil under the influence of existing building[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2024, 166: DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.106003.
[6]	GONG Chenjie, XIE Chaoran, LIN Zanquan, et al. Ground deformation prediction induced by shield tunnelling considering existing multi-story buildings[J]. Journal of Central South University, 2023, 30(4): 1373-1387. doi: 10.1007/s11771-023-5307-7
[7]	CHEN Hongyu, YANG Sai, FENG Zongbao, et al. Safety evaluation of buildings adjacent to shield construction in karst areas: an improved extension cloud approach[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023, 124: DOI: 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106386.
[8]	WANG Qian, YANG Changming, TIAN Lin, et al. Safety risk assessment of heritage buildings in metro construction based on SPA theory: a case study in Zhengzhou, China[J]. Heritage Science, 2020, 8: DOI: 10.1186/s40494-020-00439-3.
[9]	ZHANG Limao, WU Xianguo, ZHU Hongping, et al. Perceiving safety risk of buildings adjacent to tunneling excavation: an information fusion approach[J]. Automation in Construction, 2017, 73: 88-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.09.003
[10]	GUO Desai, MENG Fanyan, WU Huaina, et al. Risk assessment of shield tunneling crossing building based on variable weight theory and cloud model[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2024, 145: DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2024.105593.
[11]	骆建军, 张顶立, 王梦恕, 等. 地铁施工对邻近建筑物安全风险管理[J]. 岩土力学, 2007, 28(7):1477-1482.
	LUO Jianjun, ZHANG Dingli, WANG Mengshu, et al. Security risk management of neighboring buildings during metro construction[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2007, 28(7): 1477-1482.
[12]	梁超强, 葛忻声, 赵娟, 等. 盾构下穿浅基础建筑的沉降规律分析[J]. 太原理工大学学报, 2021, 52(2): 256-262.
	LIANG Chaoqiang, GE Xinsheng, ZHAO Juan, et al. Analysis of settlement of buildings induced by shield tunnels under construction[J]. Journal of Taiyuan University of Technology, 2021, 52(2): 256-262.
[13]	陈大川, 刘翔, 何蓓, 等. 长沙城际铁路隧道沿线砌体房屋安全风险研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2015, 11(6):87-94.
	CHEN Dachuan, LIU Xiang, HE Bei, et al. Research on safety risk of masonry structure buildings along tunnel of Changsha intercity railway[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(6):87-94.
[14]	孙斌, 李浩, 毛占利, 等. 基于序关系分析法的大型综合体火灾风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(2):81-88. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.02.0202
	SUN Bin, LI Hao, MAO Zhanli, et al. Fire risk assessment of large complex based on order relation analysis method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(2):81-8. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.02.0202
[15]	李德毅, 孟海军, 史雪梅. 隶属云和隶属云发生器[J]. 计算机研究与发展, 1995, 32(6):15-20.
	LI Deyi, MENG Haijun, SHI Xuemei. Membership clouds and membership cloud generators[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 1995, 32(6):15-20.
[16]	李长明, 赵开功, 张晓蕾, 等. 煤矿智能化项目风险评价云模型及其应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(5):168-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.05.1680
	LI Changming, ZHAO Kaigong, ZHANG Xiaolei, et al. Cloud model for risk evaluation of coal mine intelligent projects andits application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 168-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.05.1680
[17]	龚艳冰, 蒋亚东, 梁雪春. 基于模糊贴近度的正态云模型相似度度量[J]. 系统工程, 2015, 33(9):133-137.
	GONG Yanbing, JIANG Yadong, LIANG Xuechun. Similarity measurement for normal cloud models based on fuzzy similarity measure[J]. Systems Engineering, 2015, 33(9): 133-137.

准则层	一级指标	二级指标	指标符号
既有房屋建筑原始安全状态B	建筑既有抗变形能力B1	基础形式	B11
		基础埋深	B12
		结构形式	B13
		建筑形态	B14
		长高比	B15
		层数	B16
	建筑健康完损状态B2	构件变形开裂	B21
		已有倾斜沉降值	B22
		建设使用年限	B23
		周围环境	B24
	建筑物重要性B3	直接经济损失	B31
		损坏后的社会效应	B32
		建筑使用性质或用途	B33

准则层	一级指标	二级指标	指标符号
盾构下穿施工过程安全状态C	开挖面失稳C1	土舱压力设置合理性	C11
		推进和出土速度控制效果	C12
		地下水稳定性	C13
		盾构机和千斤顶性能	C14
		刀盘设计合理性	C15
		渣土改良剂效果	C16
		勘探资料准确性	C17
		盾构机停留时间	C18
		隧道埋深	C19
		水平方向控制效果	C110
	盾构机环侧土体位移 C2	盾构机和围岩摩擦力	C21
		不良地质条件	C22
		地下管网保护效果	C23
		管片密封效果	C24
		同步注浆合理性	C25
	后续土体固结C3	静孔水压力消散	C31
	后续土体固结C3	二次注浆合理性	C32
	施工管理水平C4	参建方工程经验	C41
	施工管理水平C4	控制措施落实情况	C42
	建筑与隧道位置关系C5	建筑与隧道水平位置	C51
		建筑与隧道竖直距离	C52
		隧道与建筑长边夹角	C53

特征	粮库建筑	交警大队建筑
基础形式	浅基础	条形基础
基础埋深/m	3	1.5
结构形式	平方仓砼	砖混
建筑形态	较为规整	较为规整
长高比	6.25	2
层数	1	4
变形开裂	较多裂纹	较少
沉降倾斜	较小	较小
建设时间	2010年	90年代
周围环境	一般	较好
用途	粮食存储	办公

指标	盾构下穿粮库建筑			盾构下穿交警大队建筑
指标	E_x	E_n	H_e	E_x	E_n	H_e
B1	2.834	0.394	0.101	2.690	0.417	0.176
B2	2.516	0.478	0.261	1.678	0.460	0.125
B3	2.849	0.565	0.269	2.357	0.469	0.112
C1	1.819	0.458	0.159	1.949	0.501	0.206
C2	1.908	0.674	0.193	2.083	0.459	0.251
C3	2.001	0.532	0.195	2.084	0.282	0.213
C4	2.542	0.436	0.105	2.655	0.358	0.084
C5	2.922	0.449	0.339	2.332	0.500	0.207

一级指标	评价标准云					安全等级
一级指标	安全(Ⅰ) (0.5,0.167,0.03)	较安全(Ⅱ) (1.5,0.167,0.03)	一般安全(Ⅲ) (2.5,0.167,0.03)	较不安全(Ⅳ) (3.5,0.167,0.03)	不安全(Ⅴ) (4.5,0.167,0.03)	安全等级
BG1	0.000 20	0.028 09	0.515 98	0.237 07	0.006 99	Ⅲ
BG2	0.003 52	0.118 81	0.973 57	0.129 41	0.004 04	Ⅲ
BG3	0.002 21	0.066 78	0.574 78	0.333 92	0.027 65	Ⅲ
BP1	0.000 21	0.036 63	0.677 66	0.139 05	0.002 02	Ⅲ
BP2	0.051 26	0.712 04	0.157 56	0.003 54	0.000 01	Ⅱ
BP3	0.003 36	0.147 24	0.764 87	0.060 79	0.000 77	Ⅲ
CG1	0.035 67	0.546 59	0.242 46	0.008 55	0.000 04	Ⅱ
CG2	0.080 26	0.554 11	0.412 08	0.050 61	0.002 13	Ⅱ
CG3	0.030 69	0.411 27	0.413 31	0.030 95	0.000 49	Ⅲ
CG4	0.001 15	0.080 99	0.924 66	0.105 47	0.001 79	Ⅲ
CG5	0.000 17	0.022 91	0.436 06	0.306 52	0.012 27	Ⅲ
CP1	0.035 18	0.452 48	0.369 15	0.024 95	0.000 34	Ⅱ
CP2	0.016 57	0.324 11	0.461 05	0.030 48	0.000 35	Ⅲ
CP3	0.002 74	0.224 58	0.366 18	0.007 06	0.000 01	Ⅲ
CP4	0.000 28	0.042 63	0.730 84	0.125 50	0.001 72	Ⅲ
CP5	0.008 90	0.199 05	0.753 76	0.082 82	0.002 16	Ⅲ