云桂铁路珠琳段岩溶塌陷危险性评价
摘要
路基是车辆安全平稳运行的保障,公路、铁路的路基必须具有较高的强度、耐久性和较好的稳定性,并能抵抗各种因素影响下的沉降变形。岩溶塌陷引起的地表失稳主要表现为普遍性、复杂性以及它的难以预测性。作为地质灾害,给社会带来了巨大的损失。受岩溶发育的不均匀性影响,岩溶塌陷的发育在空间上具有隐蔽性、发育过程具有累进性、塌陷的发生又具有突发性特点,是覆盖型岩溶区交通工程建设面临而且有难以解决的主要岩溶病害问题,严重影响交通建设和安全运营。西部作为我国岩溶分布的主要地区,在实施西部大开发的背景下,对岩溶地质灾害的研究更体现出其重要性。因此有必要对岩溶路基的塌陷危险性进行评价。
本文首先在针对云桂铁路岩溶塌陷实际工程问题的调查基础上,对试验段岩溶地质条件进行分析。试验段地层较为平缓,没有大型沟谷切割,地表出露地层有限。地质构造相对简单,发育两条较具规模的断层,即绕马路断层和沙子塘断层,地表特征不甚明显。试验段地处缓坡较强径流带,地下水位的变化受大气降雨的影响较大。
本次研究根据现有的试验勘探,以钻孔勘探资料为主,结合地表调查和区域地质资料,对地下水动力条件、覆盖土层物质组成及结构特征、地下岩溶发育程度等各项影响岩溶塌陷的因素进行评价分析。根据各个单项指标的基本特征,定性划分三个等级：易于、较易于和不易于导致塌陷,并将试验段沿线进行单项指标特征分区,形成较差、中等和较好区。然后结合各段主要塌陷机理,耦合各单项指标进行综合分析评价。
最后根据以上方法对各试验区段进行具体分析,并结合各区段实际自然地质条件和人类活动影响特征,对试验段岩溶塌陷机制及其危险性进行综合评价与预测。从而给出各段岩溶路基整治措施的建议。
The subgrade would guarantee the train being drived safely and smoothly. The railway and highway subgrade has to be with the high strength and the strong durability and the better stability. The surface instability which is karst collapse leaded to are mainly universal, complex and unpredictable. As a kind of geological disasters, it brought great losses to the community. By the nonuniformity of karst development, the karst collapse in space is concealed, its developmental process is progressive, and its occurrence is sporadic. In covered karst area, karst collapse is the main karst disease problem difficult to solve in the building of traffic engineering, and it seriously affect transport construction and safe operation. Western of China is the main areas of karst. In the context of the western development, the study of karst hazards reflects its importance. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the risk of karst collapse of roadbed.
Firstly, on the basis of the investigation of practical problems for Yun-Gui railway, this article analysis the karst geological conditions of test section Strata of the test section is relatively flat. There is no large gully cutting, and the outcrop of the strata is few. The geological structure is relatively simple. There are two little larger faults, Raomalu fault and Shazitang fault, which surface features are not so obvious. The test section is located in the gentle slope and strong runoff zone, and the groundwater level is influenced by rainfall.
This study based on existing test exploration, in order to drill exploration data, combined with surface surveys and regional geological data, analyzed and evaluated the factors affecting, for instance the dynamic conditions of groundwater, the material composition and structural characteristics of the overlying soil, the underground karstification level etc.
According to the basic characteristics of each individual indicators, it is qualitatively divided into three levels: easy, easier, and not easily leading to collapse. Based on division of each individual indicators, test section is divided into poor area, and middle area and better area. Then the individual indicators were coupled and analyzed, combined with the main collapse mechanism of each section.
Finally, based on the method, combined with the natural geological conditions of each section and the characteristics of human activities, the mechanism and risk of karst collapse were evaluated and predicted comprehensively. Thus the suggestions of regulation measures of karst roadbed were given.
本文首先在针对云桂铁路岩溶塌陷实际工程问题的调查基础上,对试验段岩溶地质条件进行分析。试验段地层较为平缓,没有大型沟谷切割,地表出露地层有限。地质构造相对简单,发育两条较具规模的断层,即绕马路断层和沙子塘断层,地表特征不甚明显。试验段地处缓坡较强径流带,地下水位的变化受大气降雨的影响较大。
本次研究根据现有的试验勘探,以钻孔勘探资料为主,结合地表调查和区域地质资料,对地下水动力条件、覆盖土层物质组成及结构特征、地下岩溶发育程度等各项影响岩溶塌陷的因素进行评价分析。根据各个单项指标的基本特征,定性划分三个等级：易于、较易于和不易于导致塌陷,并将试验段沿线进行单项指标特征分区,形成较差、中等和较好区。然后结合各段主要塌陷机理,耦合各单项指标进行综合分析评价。
最后根据以上方法对各试验区段进行具体分析,并结合各区段实际自然地质条件和人类活动影响特征,对试验段岩溶塌陷机制及其危险性进行综合评价与预测。从而给出各段岩溶路基整治措施的建议。
The subgrade would guarantee the train being drived safely and smoothly. The railway and highway subgrade has to be with the high strength and the strong durability and the better stability. The surface instability which is karst collapse leaded to are mainly universal, complex and unpredictable. As a kind of geological disasters, it brought great losses to the community. By the nonuniformity of karst development, the karst collapse in space is concealed, its developmental process is progressive, and its occurrence is sporadic. In covered karst area, karst collapse is the main karst disease problem difficult to solve in the building of traffic engineering, and it seriously affect transport construction and safe operation. Western of China is the main areas of karst. In the context of the western development, the study of karst hazards reflects its importance. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the risk of karst collapse of roadbed.
Firstly, on the basis of the investigation of practical problems for Yun-Gui railway, this article analysis the karst geological conditions of test section Strata of the test section is relatively flat. There is no large gully cutting, and the outcrop of the strata is few. The geological structure is relatively simple. There are two little larger faults, Raomalu fault and Shazitang fault, which surface features are not so obvious. The test section is located in the gentle slope and strong runoff zone, and the groundwater level is influenced by rainfall.
This study based on existing test exploration, in order to drill exploration data, combined with surface surveys and regional geological data, analyzed and evaluated the factors affecting, for instance the dynamic conditions of groundwater, the material composition and structural characteristics of the overlying soil, the underground karstification level etc.
According to the basic characteristics of each individual indicators, it is qualitatively divided into three levels: easy, easier, and not easily leading to collapse. Based on division of each individual indicators, test section is divided into poor area, and middle area and better area. Then the individual indicators were coupled and analyzed, combined with the main collapse mechanism of each section.
Finally, based on the method, combined with the natural geological conditions of each section and the characteristics of human activities, the mechanism and risk of karst collapse were evaluated and predicted comprehensively. Thus the suggestions of regulation measures of karst roadbed were given.
引文
[1]杨胜权.贵州省岩溶塌陷的成因及防治对策[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,(06)：38-42.
[2]蒋俊.岩溶及采空区塌陷的地质灾害研究[D].中南大学硕士论文.2008：8-11
[3]殷苗苗.岩溶区加筋路堤处治技术的设计理论与数值模拟研究[D].长沙理工大学硕士论文.2011：13-20
[4]郑小战.广花盆地岩溶地面塌陷灾害形成机理及风险评估研究[D].中南大学硕士论文.2009：12-15
[5]何礼彪.高速公路岩溶地基强夯处治试验研究与工程应用[D].中南大学,2010.20-26.
[6]袁道先.中国岩溶[M].北京：地质出版社,1993
[7]袁道先.现代岩溶学和全球变化研究[J].地学前缘,1997,4(1,2)：17-25.
[8]陈国亮.岩溶地面塌陷的成因与防治[M].北京：中国铁道出版社,1994
[9]李彬峰.路基岩溶塌陷注浆整治施工工艺探讨[J].铁道工程学报,2003,(2)：23-25.
[10]陈忠平.岩溶区路基塌陷防治的灌浆技术[J].冶金矿山设计与建设,2001,33(3)：41-44.
[11]岩土工程手册编委会.岩土工程手册[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1994
[12]高大刨.岩土工程标准规范实施手册[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1997
[13]李智毅,等.工程地质学基础[M].武汉：中国地质大学出版社,1990
[14]甘峻松.岩溶地基及其处理[J].勘察科学技术,1986,(5)：35-40.
[15]李斌.公路工程地质(第三版)[M].北京：人民交通出版社,1989
[16]钱国玉,王靖涛.宜万裸露型岩溶路基稳定性评价方法及实例[J].土工基础,2003,3：12-15.
[17]光耀华.岩溶地区工程地质研究的若干新进展概述[J].中国岩溶,1998,12(4)：378-384.
[18]Mohamed I,EI-Sayed. Karastic features associated with unconformity surfaces,a case study from the United Arab Emirates[J]. Journal of Arid Environments,2000, VOL. 46 (3)P:295-312
[19]项式均,廖如松,陈健.岩溶塌陷预测与评价[J].地质灾害与防治,1992,1(1)：56-58.
[20]贺可强,王滨,杜汝霖.中国北方岩溶塌陷[M].北京：地质出版社,2005
[21]谢春艳.铁路岩溶路基稳定性分析及其处理方法[J].铁道勘测与设计,2006(5)：39-44.
[22]李毅军.常张高速公路岩溶路基稳定性评价及其处理方法[J].湖南交通科技,2005(4)：13-15.
[23]谷永磊.新建铁路线路方案岩溶塌陷灰色模糊综合评判研究[D].北京.北京交通大学.2007：5-15.
[24]张梁,张业成,罗云华,等.地质灾害危险性评估方法[M].北京：地质出版社.1998：168-176.
[25]邹维勇.覆盖型岩溶路基病害整治[J].四川建筑,2008,(03)：79-81.
[26]Tian,K, Almost Developed Technique of Karst Collapse Prevention During Mine Drainage Karst Hydrogeology and Karst Evironment Protection. Volume 2. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Guilin, China October 10-15,1988. IAHS Publication No. 176,(1988). p 1155-1162, 5 fig, 3 ref.
[27]程晔,曹文贵,赵明华.高速公路下伏岩溶顶板稳定性二级模糊综合评判[J].中国公路学报,2003,16(4)：21-24.
[28]倪宏革,周庆坡,贾少立,周红.浅埋隐伏型岩溶路基塌陷机理与注浆加固方法[J].铁道工程学报,2005,(06)：17-19.
[29]康彦仁等.中国南方岩溶塌陷[M].南宁：广西科学技术出版社,1990
[30]周建普,李献民.岩溶地基稳定性分析评价方法[J].矿冶工程,2003,23(1)：4-7.
[31]袁腾方,曹文贵,赵明华,程晔.岩溶区高速公路路基下岩溶顶板稳定性的模糊评价方法[J].中南公路工程,2003,16(1)：8-11
[32]雷明堂,蒋小珍.岩溶塌陷研究现状、发展趋势及其支撑技术方法[J].中国地质灾害与防止学报,1998,9(3)：6-10.
[33]雷明堂,项式均.近20年来中国岩溶塌陷研究回顾[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1997,(S1)：1-5.
[34]钱建平.桂林市岩溶塌陷的基本特征和防治对策[J].矿产与地质,2007,(02)：200-204.
[35]冷长明.覆盖型岩溶路基塌陷机理与注浆加固方法[J].铁路建设技术,2012,01：45-49.
[36]盛玉环.岩溶塌陷的勘察与防治[J].岩土工程界,2004,7(4)：72-74.
[37]李瑜,朱平,雷明堂等.岩溶地面塌陷监测技术与方法[J].中国岩溶,2005,24(2)：103-108.
[38]黄伯瑜.岩溶地基的稳定性评价与工程处理[J].勘察科学技术,1988,3：1-6.
[39]曾玉莹,郑小战.岩溶地面塌陷危险性模糊评价方法[J].工程地质学报,2007,15(01)：62-65.
[40]向贤礼,曾祥忠.岩溶地区路基溶洞顶板的稳定性评价及应甲[J].西部探矿工程2007,06：164-167.
[41]黎斌,范秋雁,秦凤荣.岩溶地区溶洞顶板稳定性分析[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2002,04：532-536.
[42]谭鸿增.南昆铁路岩溶塌陷的预测和整治[J].工程地质学报.2000.(08增刊).216-217.
[43]涂国强.铁路沿线岩溶塌陷预测研究及其应用[D].成都.西南交通大学.2001
[44]刘嘉平等.三种岩溶塌陷形态的产生条件[J].中国岩溶.1994.(03)：300-306.
[45]辛宝东.北京市奥林匹克公园岩溶塌陷危险性评价[D].长春.吉林大学.2005
[46]邱向荣.岩溶塌陷稳定性的灰色模糊综合评判[J].水文地质工程地质.2004.Vol.31(04)：58-61.
[47]Ruth,BE,伍镇基.落水洞塌陷形态的预测[M].水文地质工程地质译丛,1991,(6)：12-14.
[48]代群力.论岩溶地面塌陷的形成机制与防治[J].中国煤田地质,1994,6(2)：59-63.
[49]张莫俊,缪钟灵.应用岩溶学及洞穴学[M].贵州人民出版社,1988
[50]康彦仁.试论岩溶地面塌陷的类型划分[J].中国岩溶,1984,(2)
[51]程星.岩溶塌陷机理及其预测与评价研究[M].北京：地质出版社,2006
[52]中华人民共和国建设部.岩土工程勘察规范[S].中国建筑工业出版社.1995：63-67.
[2]蒋俊.岩溶及采空区塌陷的地质灾害研究[D].中南大学硕士论文.2008：8-11
[3]殷苗苗.岩溶区加筋路堤处治技术的设计理论与数值模拟研究[D].长沙理工大学硕士论文.2011：13-20
[4]郑小战.广花盆地岩溶地面塌陷灾害形成机理及风险评估研究[D].中南大学硕士论文.2009：12-15
[5]何礼彪.高速公路岩溶地基强夯处治试验研究与工程应用[D].中南大学,2010.20-26.
[6]袁道先.中国岩溶[M].北京：地质出版社,1993
[7]袁道先.现代岩溶学和全球变化研究[J].地学前缘,1997,4(1,2)：17-25.
[8]陈国亮.岩溶地面塌陷的成因与防治[M].北京：中国铁道出版社,1994
[9]李彬峰.路基岩溶塌陷注浆整治施工工艺探讨[J].铁道工程学报,2003,(2)：23-25.
[10]陈忠平.岩溶区路基塌陷防治的灌浆技术[J].冶金矿山设计与建设,2001,33(3)：41-44.
[11]岩土工程手册编委会.岩土工程手册[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1994
[12]高大刨.岩土工程标准规范实施手册[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1997
[13]李智毅,等.工程地质学基础[M].武汉：中国地质大学出版社,1990
[14]甘峻松.岩溶地基及其处理[J].勘察科学技术,1986,(5)：35-40.
[15]李斌.公路工程地质(第三版)[M].北京：人民交通出版社,1989
[16]钱国玉,王靖涛.宜万裸露型岩溶路基稳定性评价方法及实例[J].土工基础,2003,3：12-15.
[17]光耀华.岩溶地区工程地质研究的若干新进展概述[J].中国岩溶,1998,12(4)：378-384.
[18]Mohamed I,EI-Sayed. Karastic features associated with unconformity surfaces,a case study from the United Arab Emirates[J]. Journal of Arid Environments,2000, VOL. 46 (3)P:295-312
[19]项式均,廖如松,陈健.岩溶塌陷预测与评价[J].地质灾害与防治,1992,1(1)：56-58.
[20]贺可强,王滨,杜汝霖.中国北方岩溶塌陷[M].北京：地质出版社,2005
[21]谢春艳.铁路岩溶路基稳定性分析及其处理方法[J].铁道勘测与设计,2006(5)：39-44.
[22]李毅军.常张高速公路岩溶路基稳定性评价及其处理方法[J].湖南交通科技,2005(4)：13-15.
[23]谷永磊.新建铁路线路方案岩溶塌陷灰色模糊综合评判研究[D].北京.北京交通大学.2007：5-15.
[24]张梁,张业成,罗云华,等.地质灾害危险性评估方法[M].北京：地质出版社.1998：168-176.
[25]邹维勇.覆盖型岩溶路基病害整治[J].四川建筑,2008,(03)：79-81.
[26]Tian,K, Almost Developed Technique of Karst Collapse Prevention During Mine Drainage Karst Hydrogeology and Karst Evironment Protection. Volume 2. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Guilin, China October 10-15,1988. IAHS Publication No. 176,(1988). p 1155-1162, 5 fig, 3 ref.
[27]程晔,曹文贵,赵明华.高速公路下伏岩溶顶板稳定性二级模糊综合评判[J].中国公路学报,2003,16(4)：21-24.
[28]倪宏革,周庆坡,贾少立,周红.浅埋隐伏型岩溶路基塌陷机理与注浆加固方法[J].铁道工程学报,2005,(06)：17-19.
[29]康彦仁等.中国南方岩溶塌陷[M].南宁：广西科学技术出版社,1990
[30]周建普,李献民.岩溶地基稳定性分析评价方法[J].矿冶工程,2003,23(1)：4-7.
[31]袁腾方,曹文贵,赵明华,程晔.岩溶区高速公路路基下岩溶顶板稳定性的模糊评价方法[J].中南公路工程,2003,16(1)：8-11
[32]雷明堂,蒋小珍.岩溶塌陷研究现状、发展趋势及其支撑技术方法[J].中国地质灾害与防止学报,1998,9(3)：6-10.
[33]雷明堂,项式均.近20年来中国岩溶塌陷研究回顾[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1997,(S1)：1-5.
[34]钱建平.桂林市岩溶塌陷的基本特征和防治对策[J].矿产与地质,2007,(02)：200-204.
[35]冷长明.覆盖型岩溶路基塌陷机理与注浆加固方法[J].铁路建设技术,2012,01：45-49.
[36]盛玉环.岩溶塌陷的勘察与防治[J].岩土工程界,2004,7(4)：72-74.
[37]李瑜,朱平,雷明堂等.岩溶地面塌陷监测技术与方法[J].中国岩溶,2005,24(2)：103-108.
[38]黄伯瑜.岩溶地基的稳定性评价与工程处理[J].勘察科学技术,1988,3：1-6.
[39]曾玉莹,郑小战.岩溶地面塌陷危险性模糊评价方法[J].工程地质学报,2007,15(01)：62-65.
[40]向贤礼,曾祥忠.岩溶地区路基溶洞顶板的稳定性评价及应甲[J].西部探矿工程2007,06：164-167.
[41]黎斌,范秋雁,秦凤荣.岩溶地区溶洞顶板稳定性分析[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2002,04：532-536.
[42]谭鸿增.南昆铁路岩溶塌陷的预测和整治[J].工程地质学报.2000.(08增刊).216-217.
[43]涂国强.铁路沿线岩溶塌陷预测研究及其应用[D].成都.西南交通大学.2001
[44]刘嘉平等.三种岩溶塌陷形态的产生条件[J].中国岩溶.1994.(03)：300-306.
[45]辛宝东.北京市奥林匹克公园岩溶塌陷危险性评价[D].长春.吉林大学.2005
[46]邱向荣.岩溶塌陷稳定性的灰色模糊综合评判[J].水文地质工程地质.2004.Vol.31(04)：58-61.
[47]Ruth,BE,伍镇基.落水洞塌陷形态的预测[M].水文地质工程地质译丛,1991,(6)：12-14.
[48]代群力.论岩溶地面塌陷的形成机制与防治[J].中国煤田地质,1994,6(2)：59-63.
[49]张莫俊,缪钟灵.应用岩溶学及洞穴学[M].贵州人民出版社,1988
[50]康彦仁.试论岩溶地面塌陷的类型划分[J].中国岩溶,1984,(2)
[51]程星.岩溶塌陷机理及其预测与评价研究[M].北京：地质出版社,2006
[52]中华人民共和国建设部.岩土工程勘察规范[S].中国建筑工业出版社.1995：63-67.