• 论文 •

### 地铁建设运营期的地质风险可拓评估模型研究

1. 1. 中山大学地球科学与工程学院∥广东省地球动力作用与地质灾害重点实验室，广东 广州 510275；
2. 广州地铁设计研究院股份有限公司，广东 广州 510010
• 收稿日期:2018-06-17 出版日期:2019-09-25 发布日期:2019-09-25
• 通讯作者: 高燕（1984生），女；研究方向：土的宏微观结构性，隧道稳定性与监测，地下工程；E-mail: gaoyan25@mail.sysu.edu.cn

### The geological risk assessment model based on extension method in subway construction and operation period

CHEN Qing1, GAO Yan1, ZHU Yuxun1, YUAN Quan2

1. 1. School of Earth Sciences and Engineering∥Guangdong Provincal Key Lab of Geodynamics and Geohazards,Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China;
2. Guangzhou Metro Design and Research Institute Company, Limited Guangzhou 510010, China
• Received:2018-06-17 Online:2019-09-25 Published:2019-09-25

Abstract:

The construction of underground project can be seriously affected due to the uncertainty and ambiguity of geological conditions. However, the geological risk factors are not given a thorough consideration in the risk assessment methods, while the weight is determined subjectively. In this paper, six first-level geological risk assessment indicators: soil mechanical properties, rock mass properties, inrush conditions, groundwater, karst, and regional stability are selected. Each of first-level indicators is characterized by several secondary-level evaluation indicators. Then a more comprehensive and reasonable geological risk evaluation index system is established by integrating and applying existing evaluation methods of single geological risk evaluation indicators to determine the risk level of the first-level evaluation indicators. In view of the diversity of the indicators and the incompatibility of the assessment result given by a single indicator, a geological risk assessment model is established based on the extension method. The simple correlation function in extension theory is used to calculate the weight of each indicator, which is more objective and reasonable than traditional methods. The model was adopted to evaluate the risk of a station in Guangzhou. It is found that the geological risk level division is reasonable, and can reflect the local geological risk situation objectively; the geological risk level of the station in untreated condition is “moderate risk”, and the eigenvalues of risk grade is 1.94, which indicates that “moderate risk” is biased toward the “low risk” level. The assessment result agrees with the site investigation, so the evaluation result is precise.