Physical Simulation Experiment of Granite Rockburst in a Deep-Buried Tunnel in Kangding County, Sichuan Province, China
-
摘要: 四川康定折多山某隧道因其埋深大、构造应力高度集中，在修建过程中极易产生岩爆.为探索折多山某隧道花岗岩段不同深度条件下岩爆机制，利用真三轴岩爆实验系统，开展了不同深度下的花岗岩岩爆物理模拟实验.借助应力监测、高速摄像和声发射等系统，从声、光、力等多角度研究了折多山某隧道花岗岩岩爆的阶段特征、时间特征、主要破坏方式、裂纹演化等规律.结果表明：折多山花岗岩岩爆具有时滞性特征(time delaying rockburst，TDR)，在500~1 100 m不同埋深条件下，约770 m为折多山花岗岩单面临空真三轴强度的临界深度；不同深度下的岩爆有明显阶段特征，可分为平静期、劈裂成板、板折剥落、整体弹射4个阶段；声发射特征揭示折多山花岗岩岩爆主要为张拉破坏，随深度增加，张拉裂纹逐渐增加，剪切裂纹逐渐减少；根据岩爆时应力差与单轴抗压强度比值将折多山花岗岩岩爆分为3种破坏模式：小颗粒弹射破坏、岩板劈裂破坏、岩屑混合弹射破坏；且应力比值$ \left({\sigma }_{v}-{\sigma }_{h1}\right)/{\sigma }_{c} $越大，岩爆烈度越大.Abstract: The deep-buried tunnel planned in Zheduo Mountain, Kangding County, Sichuan Province, is likely to rockburst due to its large buried depth and concentrated tectonic stress. In order to figure out the rockburst failure mechanism under different depths, in this study, the triaxial rockburst physical experiments of the granite in the Zheduo Mountain tunnel at different depths were carried out employing the stress monitoring system, high-speed camera system, and acoustic emission monitoring system. The phase characteristics, time characteristics, failure modes, and crack evolution of the granite in the Zheduo Mountain tunnel at different depths were studied with regard to the sound, light, and force and the experimental results show that the rockburst of Zheduo Mountain granite has obvious characteristics of time delaying rockburst (TDR). 770 m is the critical depth of the granite triaxial strength with one free face, and the lag characteristics of the excavation rockburst around this depth is obviously weakened. Rockburst at different depths can be divided into different stages: quiet period, splitting into plate stage, plate folding and spalling stage, and overall ejection stage. Rockburst acoustic emission characteristics reveal that the rockburst of Zheduo Mountain granite is mainly tensile failure, and with the increase of the depth, the number of tension cracks gradually increases and the number of shear cracks gradually decreases. According to the ratio of the stress difference and the uniaxial compressive strength at the time of the rockburst, the rockburst of Zheduo Mountain granite is divided into three failure modes: small particle ejection failure, rock slab splitting failure and mixed ejection failure, and the greater the stress ratio (σv-σh1)/σc is, the greater the rockburst intensity is.
-
Key words:
- deep-buried tunnel /
- high geostress /
- rockburst /
- triaxial experiment /
- acoustic emission /
- geotechnical engineering
-
图 1 折多山某隧道地质背景与区域位置
a图中，BYB.巴颜喀拉块体；CDB.川滇块体；QTB.羌塘块体；LSB.拉萨块体；GZF.甘孜-玉树断裂；LMF.龙门山断裂；XSF.鲜水河断裂；ANF.安宁河断裂；HHF.红河断裂
Fig. 1. The deep-buried tunnel geological background map in the Zheduo Mountain area
图 5 开挖前后围岩应力转化示意
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of stress path transformation before and after excavation
图 7 ZYB-1实验过程典型高速照片
a. $ {\sigma }_{v} $=22.81 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；b.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=132.69 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；c.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=132.71 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；d.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=132.92 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；e.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=139.97 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；f.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=140.11 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；g.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=140.05 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；h.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=104.60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=30 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa
Fig. 7. Typical high-speed photos of ZYB-1 experimental process
图 8 ZYB-2实验过程典型高速照片
a.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=29.86 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=40 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；b.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=110.98 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=40 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；c.σv=111.01 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=40 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；d.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=119.05 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=40 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；e.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=120.1 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=40 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；f.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=100.93 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=40 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa
Fig. 8. Typical high-speed photos of ZYB-2 experimental process
图 9 ZYB-3实验过程典型高速照片
a.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=37.91 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=50 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；b.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=118.61 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=50 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；c.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=118.62 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=50 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；d.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=118.58 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=50 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；e.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=71.79 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=50 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa
Fig. 9. Typical high-speed photos of ZYB-3 experimental process
图 10 ZYB-4实验过程典型高速照片
a.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=36.50 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；b.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=146.10 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；c.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=148.01 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；d.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=158.25 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；e.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=158.4 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa；f.$ {\sigma }_{v} $=150.04 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h1} $=60 MPa，$ {\sigma }_{h2} $=0 MPa
Fig. 10. Typical photos of ZYB-4 experimental process
图 16 声发射波形参数与裂纹分类示意
Fig. 16. The AE waveform parameters and crack classification diagram
图 17 RA-AF散点分布与密度
Fig. 17. Distribution and density distributions of parameters of RA-AF
图 18 裂纹占比与深度的关系
Fig. 18. Fitting curve between the proportion of cracks and the simulated depth
表 1 试样矿物成分相对含量
Table 1. Relative content of mineral components
矿物 石英 钠长石 斜长石 绿泥石 伊利石 含量 38.04% 21.29% 30.54% 4.96% 5.17% 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 岩爆烈度判别指标
Table 2. Evaluation index of rockburst tendency
B < 10 10≤B < 18 B≥18 无岩爆 中等程度岩爆 强烈岩爆 注：据李庶林等(2001).
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 实验工况一览
Table 3. List of experimental conditions
试样编号 深度(m) 初始应力值 σv(MPa) σh1(MPa) σh2(MPa) ZYB-1 500 25 30 20 ZYB-2 700 30 40 22 ZYB-3 900 35 50 26 ZYB-4 1 100 40 60 30 注：σv：垂直主应力：σh1：最大水平主应力；σh2：最小水平主应力.
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 实验结果
Table 4. Experimental results
试样编号 各阶段垂直向应力值(MPa) 发生最终岩爆破坏现象描述 破坏
区域岩板劈裂 板折剥落 整体弹射 ZYB-1 132.69 132.92 140.1 实验过程中首先出现小颗粒弹射并伴随岩板劈裂的现象，随即劈裂的岩板发生弯曲并以一定的速度脱离母岩，从开始出现劈裂到岩板脱离试样整个过程约持续0.16 s，最后试样发生颗粒、碎屑、粉尘等整体弹射. E、F、G、H ZYB-2 110.98 119.05 120.1 首先在G、H区出现裂纹，岩板外鼓，随后I、J区岩板发生弯曲开裂并脱离试样，持续时间0.24 s.之后在G、I两区域发生碎屑整体弹射现象，弹射过程持续约5 s. G、I ZYB-3 118.61 - 118.6 试件顶部首先出现颗粒弹射喷出现象，紧接着B区右上角初现了拉裂纹并发生了二次弹射，最终在B区大块碎屑被弹出，整体弹射阶段大约8 s. B ZYB-4 146.10 148.01 158.4 首先在A、B两区之间形成了一条张拉裂缝，A区岩板发生板折弯曲并脱离试样，整个过程持续约5 s.约1 s后，A、B两区岩体发生整体破坏. A、B
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 应力比值与主要破坏形式
Table 5. Stress ratios and main failure modes
试样
编号峰值应力(MPa) 应力比值 主要破坏
形式应变能 σv σh1 $ \left({\sigma }_{v}-{\sigma }_{h1}\right) $/σc ZYB-1 140.06 30 0.87 岩屑混合弹射破坏 0.34 MJ/m3 ZYB-2 120.16 40 0.63 岩板劈裂
破坏0.24 MJ/m3 ZYB-3 118.64 50 0.55 小颗粒弹射破坏 0.23 MJ/m3 ZYB-4 158.4 60 0.76 岩屑混合弹射破坏 0.48 MJ/m3
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Cook, N. G. W., 1965. The Failure of Rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 2(4): 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(65)90004-5 [2] Fei, H. L., Xu, X. H., Tang, C. A., 2000. Study on Rock Burst by Means of Physical Simulation. China Mining Magazine, 9(6): 39-41(in Chinese with English abstract). [3] Feng, X. T., Chen, B. R., Ming, H. J., et al., 2012. Evolution Law and Mechanism of Rockbursts in Deep Tunnels: Immediate Rockburst. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 31(3): 433-444(in Chinese with English abstract). [4] Feng, X. T., Xiao, Y. X., Feng, G. L., et al., 2019. Study on the Development Process of Rockbursts. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 38(4): 649-673(in Chinese with English abstract). [5] Guo, C. B., Wu, R. A., Jiang, L. W., et al., 2021. Typical Geohazards and Engineering Geological Problems along the Ya'an-Linzhi Section of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway, China. Geoscience, 35(1): 1-17(in Chinese with English abstract). [6] He, M. C., Miao, J. L., Li, D. J., et al., 2007. Experimental Study on Rockburst Processes of Granite Specimen at Great Depth. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 26(5): 865-876(in Chinese with English abstract). [7] He, M. C., Xie, H. P., Peng, S. P., et al., 2005. Study on Rock Mechanics in Deep Mining Engineering. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 24(16): 2803-2813(in Chinese with English abstract). [8] He, M. C., Zhao, F., Du, S., et al., 2014. Rockburst Characteristics Based on Experimental Tests under Different Unloading Rates. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 35(10): 2737-2747, 2793(in Chinese with English abstract). [9] Kaiser, P. K., Cai, M., 2012. Design of Rock Support System under Rockburst Condition. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 4(3): 215-227. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1235.2012.00215 [10] Li, S. L., Feng, X. T., Wang, Y. J., et al., 2001. Evaluation of Rockburst Proneness in a Deep Hard Rock Mine. Journal of Northeastern University (Natural Science), 22(1): 60-63(in Chinese with English abstract). [11] Li, T., Feng, X. T., Wang, R., et al., 2019. Characteristics of Rockburst Location Deflection and Its Microseismic Activities in a Deep Tunnel. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 40(7): 2847-2854(in Chinese with English abstract). [12] Ortlepp, W. D., 2001. The Behaviour of Tunnels at Great Depth under Large Static and Dynamic Pressures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16(1): 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-7798(01)00029-3 [13] Pan, G. T., Ren, F., Yin, F. G., et al., 2020. Key Zones of Oceanic Plate Geology and Sichuan-Tibet Railway Project. Earth Science, 45(7): 2293-2304(in Chinese with English abstract). [14] Peng, J. B., Cui, P., Zhuang, J. Q., 2020. Challenges to Engineering Geology of Sichuan—Tibet Railway. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 39(12): 2377-2389(in Chinese with English abstract). [15] Qiu, S. L., Feng, X. T., Jiang, Q., et al., 2014. A Novel Numerical Index for Estimating Strainburst Vulnerability in Deep Tunnels. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 33(10): 2007-2017(in Chinese with English abstract). [16] Ren, Y., Wang, D., Li, T. B., et al., 2021. In-Situ Geostress Characteristics and Engineering Effect in Ya'an-Xinduqiao Section of Sichuan-Tibet Railway. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 40(1): 65-76(in Chinese with English abstract). [17] Su, G. S., Hu, L. H., Feng, X. T., et al., 2016a. True Triaxial Experimental Study of Rockburst Process under Low Frequency Cyclic Disturbance Load Combined with Static Load. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 35(7): 1309-1322(in Chinese with English abstract). [18] Su, G. S., Jiang, J. Q., Feng, X. T., et al., 2016b. Experimental Study of Ejection Process in Rockburst. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 35(10): 1990-1999(in Chinese with English abstract). [19] Wang, X. N., Huang, R. Q., 1998. Analysis of Deformation and Failure Features Characteristics of Rock under Unloalding Conditions and Their Effects on Rock Burst. Journal of Mountain Research, (4): 26-30(in Chinese with English abstract). [20] Wang, Y., He, M. C., Liu, D. Q., et al., 2019. Rockburst in Sandstone Containing Elliptic Holes with Varying Axial Ratios. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5169618 [21] Wen, T., Tang, H. M., Ma, J. W., et al., 2019. Deformation Simulation for Rock in Consideration of Initial Damage and Residual Strength. Earth Science, 44(2): 652-663(in Chinese with English abstract). [22] Xu, L. S., 2003. Research on the Experimental Rock Mechanics of Rockburst under Unloading Condition. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University, 22(1): 1-4(in Chinese with English abstract). [23] Xu, Z. X., Meng, W., Guo, C. B., et al., 2021. In-Situ Stress Measurement and Its Application of a Deep-Buried Tunnel in Zheduo Mountain, West Sichuan. Geoscience, 35(1): 114-125(in Chinese with English abstract). [24] Yan, J., He, C., Wang, B., et al., 2020. Research on Characteristics and Mechanism of Rockburst Occurring in High Geo-Temperature and High Geo-Stress Tunnel. Journal of the China Railway Society, 42(12): 186-194 (in Chinese with English abstract). [25] Zhang, C. Q., Lu, J. J., Chen, J., et al., 2017. Discussion on Rock Burst Proneness Indexes and Their Relation. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 38(5): 1397-1404(in Chinese with English abstract). [26] Zhang, Y. S., Xiong, T. Y., Du, Y. B., et al., 2009. Geostress Characteristic and Simulation Experiment of Rockburst of a Deep-Buried Tunnel in Gaoligong Mountain. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 28(11): 2286-2294(in Chinese with English abstract). [27] Zhao, M. J., Wu, D. L., 1999. Ultrasonic Properties of Rock under Loading and Unloading: Theoretical Model and Experimental Research. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 21(5): 540-545(in Chinese with English abstract). [28] Zhou, H., Meng, F. Z., Zhang, C. Q., et al., 2015. Review and Status of Research on Physical Simulation Test for Rockburst. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 34(5): 915-923(in Chinese with English abstract). [29] 费鸿禄, 徐小荷, 唐春安, 2000. 岩爆的物理模拟及其机制的研究. 中国矿业, 9(6): 35-37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4051.2000.06.012 [30] 冯夏庭, 陈炳瑞, 明华军, 等, 2012. 深埋隧洞岩爆孕育规律与机制: 即时型岩爆. 岩石力学与工程学报, 31(3): 433-444. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6915.2012.03.001 [31] 冯夏庭, 肖亚勋, 丰光亮, 等, 2019. 岩爆孕育过程研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 38(4) : 649-673. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX201904002.htm [32] 郭长宝, 吴瑞安, 蒋良文, 等, 2021. 川藏交通廊道雅安-林芝段典型地质灾害与工程地质问题. 现代地质, 35(1): 1-17. [33] 何满潮, 苗金丽, 李德建, 等, 2007. 深部花岗岩试样岩爆过程实验研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 26(5): 865-876. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2007.05.001 [34] 何满潮, 谢和平, 彭苏萍, 等, 2005. 深部开采岩体力学研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 24(16): 2803-2813. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2005.16.001 [35] 何满潮, 赵菲, 杜帅, 等, 2014. 不同卸载速率下岩爆破坏特征试验分析. 岩土力学, 35(10): 2737-2747, 2793. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201410001.htm [36] 李庶林, 冯夏庭, 王泳嘉, 等, 2001. 深井硬岩岩爆倾向性评价. 东北大学学报, 22(1): 60-63. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DBDX200101017.htm [37] 李桐, 冯夏庭, 王睿, 等, 2019. 深埋隧道岩爆位置偏转及其微震活动特征. 岩土力学, 40(7): 2847-2854. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201907040.htm [38] 潘桂棠, 任飞, 尹福光, 等, 2020. 洋板块地质与川藏交通廊道工程地质关键区带. 地球科学, 45(7): 2293-2304. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.070 [39] 彭建兵, 崔鹏, 庄建琦, 2020. 川藏交通廊道对工程地质提出的挑战. 岩石力学与工程学报, 39(12): 2377-2389. [40] 邱士利, 冯夏庭, 江权, 等, 2014. 深埋隧洞应变型岩爆倾向性评估的新数值指标研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 33(10): 2007-2017. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX201410007.htm [41] 任洋, 王栋, 李天斌, 等, 2021. 川藏交通廊道雅安至新都桥段地应力特征及工程效应分析. 岩石力学与工程学报, 40(1): 65-76. [42] 苏国韶, 胡李华, 冯夏庭, 等, 2016a. 低频周期扰动荷载与静载联合作用下岩爆过程的真三轴试验研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 35(7): 1309-1322. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX201607002.htm [43] 苏国韶, 蒋剑青, 冯夏庭, 等, 2016b. 岩爆弹射破坏过程的试验研究. 岩石力学与工程学报, 35(10): 1990-1999. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX201610006.htm [44] 王贤能, 黄润秋, 1998. 岩石卸荷破坏特征与岩爆效应. 山地研究, (4): 26-30. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SDYA804.005.htm [45] 温韬, 唐辉明, 马俊伟, 等, 2019. 考虑初始损伤和残余强度的岩石变形过程模拟. 地球科学, 44(2): 652-663. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2018.212 [46] 徐林生, 2003. 卸荷状态下岩爆岩石力学试验. 重庆交通学院学报, 22(1): 1-4. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CQJT200301001.htm [47] 徐正宣, 孟文, 郭长宝, 等, 2021. 川西折多山某深埋隧道地应力测量及其应用研究. 现代地质, 35(1): 114-125. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDDZ202101013.htm [48] 严健, 何川, 汪波, 等, 2020. 高地温高应力隧道岩爆特征及机制研究. 铁道学报, 42(12): 186-194. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8360.2020.12.024 [49] 张传庆, 卢景景, 陈珺, 等, 2017. 岩爆倾向性指标及其相互关系探讨. 岩土力学, 38(5): 1397-1404. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201705023.htm [50] 张永双, 熊探宇, 杜宇本, 等, 2009. 高黎贡山深埋隧道地应力特征及岩爆模拟试验. 岩石力学与工程学报, 28(11): 2286-2294. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2009.11.018 [51] 赵明阶, 吴德伦, 1999. 单轴受荷条件下岩石的声学特性模型与实验研究. 岩土工程学报, 21(5): 540-545. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.1999.05.003 [52] 周辉, 孟凡震, 张传庆, 等, 2015. 岩爆物理模拟试验研究现状及思考. 岩石力学与工程学报, 34(5): 915-923. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX201505006.htm -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 298
- HTML全文浏览量: 75
- PDF下载量: 31
- 被引次数: 0
