基于定向钻孔的深埋隧洞外水压力原位测试技术及应用

doi:10.11988/ckyyb.20241216

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 隧洞外水压力是深埋隧洞施工设计的重要参数,在深埋隧洞的前期勘察阶段,难以通过传统的垂直钻孔勘探来获取此参数,工程上一般采用折减系数法对隧洞外水压力进行估算。为更精确地评价隧洞外水压力,提出了基于定向钻孔的深埋隧洞外水压力测试技术,研发了一套以存储式压力传感器为核心的外水压力原位测试系统,并应用于引大济岷工程二郎山隧洞花岗岩体洞段。利用定向钻孔对隧洞外水压力进行了全孔段测试,揭示沿深埋隧洞轴线方向外水压力分布情况,并与折减系数法的计算值进行比较分析。结果表明:①基于Pearson相关性分析,测试得到的外水压力与裂隙密集带宽度总和呈极强相关,相关性强度r=0.85;与岩体透水率呈强相关,相关性强度r=0.64;与试段埋深呈弱相关,相关性强度r=0.16。②实测外水压力比折减系数法计算结果高20.47%~42.17%。本研究通过实测手段获取隧洞在天然地下渗流场中的外水压力值比折减系数法更具真实性和可靠性。研究成果为隧洞前期勘察阶段外水压力测试提供了一种实测量化方法,为深埋隧洞的设计施工及运行安全提供了更为科学的参考。

关键词: 深埋隧洞, 外水压力, 原位测试, 复杂地质条件, 存储式水压力传感器, 折减系数法, 引大济岷工程

Abstract:

[Objective] External water pressure is a critical parameter in the construction design of deep-buried tunnels. During the early investigation stage, it is difficult to obtain this parameter through traditional vertical borehole exploration. In engineering practice, the reduction coefficient method is generally used to estimate the external water pressure of tunnels. To achieve more accurate evaluation, a testing technology for external water pressure in deep-buried tunnels was proposed based on directional drilling. An in-situ testing system for external water pressure, with storage-type pressure sensors as its core, was developed and applied to the granite section of the Erlangshan Tunnel in Dadu River to Minjiang River Water Diversion Project. [Methods] Full-depth testing of the external water pressure in the tunnel was conducted using directional drilling to reveal the distribution of external water pressure along the axis of the deep-buried tunnel. The calculated values obtained from the reduction coefficient method were analyzed and compared. [Results] Based on Pearson correlation analysis, the measured external water pressure exhibited an extremely strong correlation with the total width of the fracture-intensive zone (r=0.85), a strong correlation with rock mass permeability (r=0.64), and a weak correlation with the burial depth of the test section (r=0.16). The measured external water pressure was 20.47% to 42.17% higher than that calculated by the reduction coefficient method. [Conclusions] Compared with the traditional reduction coefficient method, this study analyzes the external water pressure of the tunnel using water pressure values obtained from segmented and continuous measurements in a natural three-dimensional groundwater seepage field through in-situ testing methods, providing more reliable analysis of tunnel external water pressure in engineering practice. This study provides an in-situ quantitative testing method for external water pressure testing during the early investigation stage of tunnels, thereby offering a more scientific reference for the design, construction, and operational safety of deep-buried tunnels.

Key words: deep-buried tunnel, external water pressure, in-situ testing, complex geological conditions, storage-type water pressure sensor, reduction coefficient method, Dadu River to Minjiang River Water Diversion Project

中图分类号:

P641.73

范时杰, 王子忠, 李珑, 陈英, 余磊, 麦高飞, 王博, 王军朝. 基于定向钻孔的深埋隧洞外水压力原位测试技术及应用[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2025, 42(8): 217-222.

FAN Shi-jie, WANG Zi-zhong, LI Long, CHEN Ying, YU Lei, MAI Gao-fei, WANG Bo, WANG Jun-chao. In-Situ Testing Technology and Its Application for External Water Pressure in Deep-Buried Tunnels Based on Directional Drilling[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2025, 42(8): 217-222.

图/表 12

图1 隧址区地形地貌

Fig.1 Topography and geomorphology of tunnel site area

图2 SPDZK1钻孔剖面

Fig.2 Profile of borehole SPDZK1

图3 外水压力测试系统

Fig.3 External water pressure testing system

表1 试验段深度、裂隙密集带宽度及外水压力测试结果

Table 1 Test section depth,fracture-intensive zone width, and test results of external water pressure

试验段	埋深/ m	起止深度/m	裂隙密集带宽度总和/mm	岩体透水率/Lu	外水压力/MPa
L31	436	645~650	47	2.5	2.64
L32	447	659~664	45	3.5	2.61
L33	455	670~675	78	4.2	3.00
L34	461	677~682	28	3.5	2.58
L35	469	688~693	75	4.9	3.08
L36	481	705~710	69	4.8	3.00
L37	490	720~725	96	5.4	3.32
L38	495	735~740	68	4.9	3.15
L39	497	750~755	78	4.6	3.20
L40	501	756~761	91	5.8	3.07
L41	504	765~770	65	3.0	2.74
L42	507	774~779	59	2.5	2.75
L43	509	790~795	71	2.9	2.85
L44	510	815~820	75	4.5	2.73
L45	514	822~827	40	4.8	2.54

图4 试验段在定向钻孔中的分布及与隧洞的关系

Fig.4 Distribution of test sections in directional drilling and its relationship with tunnel

图5 典型试验段外水压力时间曲线

Fig.5 Curves of external water pressure in typical test sections over time

图6 等效水头高度与试验段埋深关系

Fig.6 Relationship between equivalent water head height and buried depth of test sections

图7 钻孔岩心中典型裂隙密集带

Fig.7 Typical fracture-intensive zone in borehole cores

图8 外水压力与裂隙密集带宽度总和关系

Fig.8 Relationship between external water pressure and total width of fracture-intensive zones

图9 Pearson相关性分析结果

Fig.9 Pearson correlation analysis results

表2 定向钻孔实测外水压力与折减系数法计算结果对比

Table 2 Comparison between measured external water pressure in directional drilling and calculated results using reduction coefficient method

试验段编号	起止深度/m	钻孔二维剖面推测水头/m	折减系数 β	折减系数法计算外水压力/MPa	定向钻孔实测外水压力/MPa	相对误差/ %
L31	645~650	429.0	0.4	1.72	2.64	34.85
L32	659~664	440.2	0.4	1.76	2.61	32.57
L33	670~675	449.4	0.4	1.80	3.00	40.00
L34	677~682	454.9	0.4	1.82	2.58	29.46
L35	688~693	463.1	0.4	1.85	3.08	39.94
L36	705~710	474.2	0.4	1.90	3.00	36.67
L37	720~725	480.4	0.4	1.92	3.32	42.17
L38	735~740	484.8	0.4	1.94	3.15	38.41
L39	750~755	489.2	0.4	1.96	3.20	38.75
L40	756~761	491.9	0.4	1.97	3.07	35.83
L41	765~770	494.7	0.4	1.98	2.74	27.74
L42	774~779	497.6	0.4	1.99	2.75	27.64
L43	790~795	502.4	0.4	2.01	2.85	29.47
L44	815~820	506.0	0.4	2.02	2.73	26.01
L45	822~827	506.0	0.4	2.02	2.54	20.47

图10 折减系数法计算值与定向钻孔测试值对比

Fig.10 Comparison between calculated value using reduction coefficient method and measured value in directional drilling

[1]	李建贺, 牛利敏, 王帅, 许然, 陈培. 深埋隧洞穿高压富水断层涌水突泥分析与处置技术[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2024, 41(10): 149-156.
[2]	欧阳林, 张如九, 刘耀儒, 黄其帅, 李建贺, 庞智勇. 深埋隧洞岩爆防控技术及典型工程应用现状综述[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2022, 39(12): 161-170.
[3]	陈长生, 张海平, 周云, 李银泉, 史存鹏, 王旺盛. 滇中引水工程香炉山隧洞勘察关键技术[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2022, 39(12): 8-14.
[4]	陈富强,杨光华,孙树楷,官大庶,朱思军. 珠三角软土原位测试的工程实践及成果应用效果分析[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2019, 36(4): 129-134.
[5]	申翃, 徐婧, 胡胜刚, 程永辉. 一种用于海洋工程中的上拔式静力触探技术可行性研究[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2019, 36(1): 84-87.
[6]	崔广芹,尚志成,秦迪. 基于冻融循环试验的季节性冻土区边坡稳定性分析[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2018, 35(8): 102-105.
[7]	王延宁, 蒋斌松, 张强, 陈运涛. 深海沉管隧道基础水下沉降监测技术[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2018, 35(3): 116-121.
[8]	章诚, 杨建华, 姚池, 陈奕阳. 深埋隧洞连续爆破开挖围岩应力演化规律[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2018, 35(12): 108-112.
[9]	尹健民,周春华,李云安,崔东,汪洋. 北疆深埋隧洞地应力与区域应力场的相关性研究[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2014, 31(11): 42-46.
[10]	揭秉辉, 赵周能, 陈炳瑞, 肖亚勋, 丰光亮. 基于微震监测技术的深埋长大隧洞群岩爆时空分布规律分析[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2012, 29(9): 69-73.
[11]	邓伟杰, 路新景, 房后国, 于立新. 钻孔弹模测试技术的应用研究[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2012, 29(8): 67-71.
[12]	陈文亮, 章青, 刘仲秋. 深埋隧洞开挖岩爆数值模拟与预测[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2012, 29(5): 40-44.
[13]	鲍树峰, 董志良, 张功新, 莫海鸿, 房营光. 科威特Boubyan岛土体工程特性研究[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2012, 29(12): 53-57.
[14]	赵延喜, 徐卫亚. 基于模糊概率的深埋隧洞岩爆风险分析[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 2008, 25(6): 82-85.
[15]	王城. 六米离心机开始运用——三个大型三维光弹模型试验成功[J]. raybet体育在线院报, 1985, 2(1): 93-93.