In-situ Stress Analysis and Rockburst Risk Assessment of Liupanshan Tunnel of Bailong River Water Diversion Project

DONG Zhi-hong, JIANG Jian, ZHANG Xin-hui, ZHOU Chao, ZUO Qing-jun

Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute ›› 2026, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (1) : 181-190.

PDF(8609 KB)
PDF(8609 KB)
Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute ›› 2026, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (1) : 181-190. DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20241128
Basic Theories and Key Technologies for Major Water Diversion Projects

In-situ Stress Analysis and Rockburst Risk Assessment of Liupanshan Tunnel of Bailong River Water Diversion Project

Author information +
History +

Abstract

[Objective] Taking the deeply buried Liupanshan tunnel of the Bailong River Diversion Project as the research background, this study aims to systematically investigate the distribution characteristics of the in-situ stress field along the tunnel alignment and to assess the rockburst risk of hard-rock sections under high-stress conditions, thereby providing a scientific basis for early-stage project planning, construction safety control, and support design. [Methods] A comprehensive approach combining field testing, numerical simulation, and theoretical analysis was employed. (1) Geological survey and deep-borehole hydraulic fracturing tests were conducted to obtain measured in-situ stress data from representative boreholes along the tunnel alignment. (2) Based on the measured data, a three-dimensional geomechanical model was established, and a multivariate regression inversion method was used to invert the initial in-situ stress field of the entire study area. (3) By integrating the Russenes criterion, the Turchaninov criterion, and the criterion of the ratio of chamber damage depth, a multi-criterion comprehensive evaluation of rockburst risk was conducted for the hard-rock sections. [Results] (1) In-situ stress characteristics: Along the tunnel alignment, horizontal stress was dominant, and the maximum horizontal principal stress was mainly oriented in the NEE-EW direction, forming a small angle with the tunnel axis, which was favorable for surrounding rock stability. The stress magnitude increased with depth and was significantly influenced by faults and valley topography, resulting in localized stress concentration and stress differentiation. (2) Inversion verification: A comparison between the measured data and inversion results from the deepest borehole ZK2301 showed good agreement in the deep zone, verifying the reliability of the inversion model. (3) Rockburst risk: The multi-criterion assessment indicated that rockburst risk increased with burial depth along the tunnel alignment: no rockburst at depths ≤197 m; weak rockburst at depths of 197-344 m; moderate rockburst at depths of 344-629 m; and strong rockburst at depths >629 m. Sections with strong rockburst risk accounted for a relatively large proportion of the entire tunnel, mainly concentrated in hard-rock zones with high burial depths. [Conclusion] The in-situ stress along the Liupanshan tunnel is generally at a moderate-to-high level, providing conditions conducive to rockburst occurrence. The selected tunnel axis orientation is reasonable and favorable for surrounding rock stability. However, strong rockburst risk exists in hard-rock sections with large burial depths. Therefore, it is recommended that appropriate rockburst monitoring and mitigation measures should be implemented for high-risk tunnel sections during construction. This study provides critical guidance for the safe construction of the project and offers valuable reference for rockburst prediction and prevention in similar deeply buried hard-rock tunnels.

Key words

deep-borehole in-situ stress test / in-situ stress field inversion analysis / rockburst prediction / Liupanshan Tunnel

Cite this article

Download Citations
DONG Zhi-hong , JIANG Jian , ZHANG Xin-hui , et al . In-situ Stress Analysis and Rockburst Risk Assessment of Liupanshan Tunnel of Bailong River Water Diversion Project[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute. 2026, 43(1): 181-190 https://doi.org/10.11988/ckyyb.20241128

References

[1]
刘允芳. 岩体地应力与工程建设[M]. 武汉: 湖北科技技术出版社, 2000.
(LIU Yun-fang. Rock Mass In-situ Stress and Engineering Construction[M]. Wuhan: Hubei Science and Technology Press, 2000.) (in Chinese)
[2]
靳晓光, 王艳, 林志, 等. 西藏扎墨公路嘎隆拉隧道岩爆倾向性实验研究[J]. 山地学报, 2013, 31(1):114-119.
(JIN Xiao-guang, WANG Yan, LIN Zhi, et al. Test Study of Rockburst Proneness on Galongla Tunnel of Zhamo Highway in Tibet, China[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2013, 31(1): 114-119.) (in Chinese)
[3]
RUSSENES B F. Analyses of Rockburst in Tunnels in Valley Sides[M]. Trondheim: Norwegian Institue of Technology, 1974.
[4]
HOEK E, BROWN E T. Underground Excavations in Rock[M]. London: CRC Press, 1980.
[5]
HOMAND F, PIGUET J P. Dynamic Phenomena in Mines and Characteristics of Rocks[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1992, 29(1): 69.
[6]
MASTIN L G. The Development of Borehole Breakouts in Sandstone[D]. California: Stanford University, 1984.
[7]
SINGH S P. Burst Energy Release Index: Technical Note[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1989, 26(1): 19.
[8]
KIDYBINSKI. Bursting Liability Indices of Coal[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1981, 18(6): 121.
[9]
冯夏庭, 陈炳瑞, 张传庆, 等. 岩爆孕育过程的机制、预警与动态调控[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013.
(FENG Xia-ting, CHEN Bing-rui, ZHANG Chuan-qing, et al. Mechanism, Warning and Dynamic Control of Rockburst Development Processes[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2013.) (in Chinese)
[10]
陶振宇. 高地应力区的岩爆及其判别[J]. 人民长江, 1987, 18(5): 25-32.
(TAO Zhen-yu. Rockburst in High Geostress Area and Its Discrimination[J]. Yangtze River, 1987, 18(5): 25-32.) (in Chinese)
[11]
文志杰, 姜青林, 蒋宇静, 等. 川西地区高地应力岩爆风险动态评估方法与应用研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2024, 43(2): 308-321.
(WEN Zhi-jie, JIANG Qing-lin, JIANG Yu-jing, et al. Study on Dynamic Assessment Method and Application of Rockburst Risk under High Crustal Stresses in Western Sichuan[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2024, 43(2): 308-321.) (in Chinese)
[12]
侯奎奎, 吴钦正, 张凤鹏, 等. 不同地应力测试方法在三山岛金矿2 005 m竖井建井区域的应用及其地应力分布规律研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(4):1093-1102.
(HOU Kui-kui, WU Qin-zheng, ZHANG Feng-peng, et al. Application of Different In-situ Stress Test Methods in the Area of 2 005 m Shaft Construction of Sanshandao Gold Mine and Distribution Law of In-situ Stress[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2022, 43(4): 1093-1102.) (in Chinese)
[13]
李鹏翔, 陈炳瑞, 周扬一, 等. 硬岩岩爆预测预警研究进展[J]. 煤炭学报, 2019, 44(增刊2): 447-465.
(LI Peng-xiang, CHEN Bing-rui, ZHOU Yang-yi, et al. Research Progress on Prediction and Early Warning of Hard Rock Rockburst[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2019, 44(Supp. 2): 447-465.) (in Chinese)
[14]
徐林生. 地下工程岩爆发生条件研究[J]. 重庆交通学院学报, 2005, 24(3): 31-34.
(XU Lin-sheng. Research of Rockburst Formation Condition in Underground Engineering[J]. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University, 2005, 24(3): 31-34.) (in Chinese)
[15]
严健, 何川, 汪波, 等. 雅鲁藏布江缝合带深埋长大隧道群岩爆孕育及特征[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2019, 38(4): 769-781.
(YAN Jian, HE Chuan, WANG Bo, et al. Inoculation and Characters of Rockbursts in Extra-long and Deep-lying Tunnels Located on Yarlung Zangbo Suture[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 38(4): 769-781.) (in Chinese)
[16]
李永松, 陈建平, 尹健民. 抢风岭隧道围岩地应力场研究及岩爆预测分析[J]. 人民长江, 2011, 42(7): 15-18.
(LI Yong-song, CHEN Jian-ping, YIN Jian-min. Research on Crustal Stress Field of Surrounding Rock of Qiangfengling Tunnel and Rock Burst Forecast[J]. Yangtze River, 2011, 42(7): 15-18.) (in Chinese)
[17]
张文东, 马天辉, 唐春安, 等. 锦屏二级水电站引水隧洞岩爆特征及微震监测规律研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2014, 33(2): 339-348.
(ZHANG Wen-dong, MA Tian-hui, TANG Chun-an, et al. Research on Characteristics of Rockburst and Rules of Microseismic Monitoring at Diversion Tunnels in Jinping Ⅱ Hydropower Station[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2014, 33(2): 339-348.) (in Chinese)
[18]
宋章, 袁传保, 杜宇本, 等. 成兰铁路某长大深埋隧道岩爆特征及成因机制[J]. 铁道工程学报, 2017, 34(10):66-72.
Abstract
研究目的:在建成兰铁路平安隧道因其复杂的地质构造条件、高构造应力场特征及坚硬完整的围岩条件等,隧道开挖过程中围岩岩爆现象较为普遍。本文在现场调绘及地应力测试、岩块物理力学试验等资料分析的基础上,根据岩爆现象 及其破坏特征,从工程地质环境、地质构造、地应力场及地层岩性等方面,以工程地质的视角,对复杂构造高应力场中质坚性脆围岩岩爆的成因机制进行分析,并对类似工程地质条件下隧道其他段的岩爆等级进行预测。 研究结论: (1)区域构造上,平安隧道3#斜井工区处于较场山字形构造带之前弧部位,褶曲及断层等新老构造叠加,构造条件极其复杂;(2)隧道内岩爆主要呈现为围岩爆裂松脱、剥落、弹射等现象,对工程破坏主要表现为初支喷混凝 土剥落、开裂、拱架扭曲、断裂、垮塌等现象;(3)在时间上,测段岩爆主要表现为即时型岩爆特征,其岩爆等级为中等~强烈岩爆;(4)从工程地质的视角,测段岩爆可归纳为强烈复杂地质构造的孕育条件、高构造应力场的力 学条件、坚硬完整围岩条件等主要因素综合影响的成因机制;(5)本文分析方法和结论对山区类似工程地质条件下隧道工程围岩岩爆的设计和施工具有一定的借鉴意义。
(SONG Zhang, YUAN Chuan-bao, DU Yu-ben, et al. The Characteristics and Formation Mechanism of Rock-burst for a Long and Deep Tunnel of Chengdu-Lanzhou Railway[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2017, 34(10): 66-72.) (in Chinese)
Research purposes: For its geological background such as the complex geological structure conditions, high tectonic stress field characteristics, hard and intact surrounding rock conditions, which is under construction for the Ping′an tunnel of Chengdu-Lanzhou railway, the rock-burst disasters of surrounding rock generally produced in the process of tunnel construction. According to the phenomenon of rock-burst and it′s failure characteristics of supporting structure, this paper based on the geological survey, the data analysis of geo-stress test and physical mechanics test of rock mass, from several aspects of the engineering geological environment, geological structure, geo-stress field and formation lithology, the formation mechanisms of rock-burst of surrounding rock which is in the environment of complex geological structure and high geo-stress field were analyzed in perspective of engineering geology, and the rock burst level of the other section of tunnel under similar engineering geological conditions were evaluated.  Research conclusions: (1)In regional structure the 3# inclined shaft working area of Ping′an tunnel located in the front arc position of Jiaochang mountain structural belt, new and old structures such as fold and fault were developed and superimposed, with complex construction condition. (2) In tunnel rock-burst was mainly expressed as the phenomenon of rock burst loose, spalling, and ejection, etc., and with the failure characteristics of primary support concrete spalling, fracture, steel distortion, crack and collapse for the engineering structure. (3) Rock-burst was mainly presented as the immediate rock-burst characteristics in time, and rock-burst level is moderate to strong. (4) In perspective of engineering geology, the formation mechanism of rock-burst of tunnel surrounding rock can be summarized as the comprehensive influence of main factors such as the inoculation conditions of strongly complex geological structure, mechanics condition of high geo- stress field and condition of hard and intact surrounding rock. (5) The 〖JP3〗analysis methods and conclusions of this paper have certain reference significance for the design and construction of rock-〖JP〗burst of surrounding rock of tunnel engineering under similar engineering geological conditions in mountainous area. 
[19]
王开洋, 肖鸿, 尚彦军, 等. 西南地区某隧道围岩岩爆预测研究[J]. 工程地质学报, 2014, 22(5):903-914.
(WANG Kai-yang, XIAO Hong, SHANG Yan-jun, et al. Prediction of Rockburst at Wall Rocks of Tunnels in Southwest[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2014, 22(5): 903-914.) (in Chinese)
[20]
徐昌茂, 吴立, 赖云, 等. 深埋长大高速铁路隧道地应力测试及岩爆预测分析[J]. 中外公路, 2013, 33(2):207-211.
(XU Chang-mao, WU Li, LAI Yun, et al. In-situ Stress Measurement and Rockburst Prediction Analysis of Deep-buried Long-span High-speed Railway Tunnel[J]. Journal of China & Foreign Highway, 2013, 33(2): 207-211.) (in Chinese)
[21]
贺睿兴, 尹健民, 张新辉, 等. 某深埋长隧洞初始应力场研究及岩爆预测分析[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2018, 14(增刊1): 390-394.
(HE Rui-xing, YIN Jian-min, ZHANG Xin-hui, et al. Study on Initial Stress Field and Rockburst Prediction Analysis of a Deep-buried Long Tunnel[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2018, 14(Supp. 1): 390-394.) (in Chinese)
[22]
郑宝平. 六盘山深埋长隧洞工程地质问题初步分析[J]. 水利规划与设计, 2019(6): 102-105.
(ZHENG Bao-ping. Analysis of Engineering Geological Problems of Deep Buried Long Tunnel in Liupanshan[J]. Water Resources Planning and Design, 2019(6): 102-105.) (in Chinese)
[23]
向宏发, 虢顺民, 张秉良, 等. 六盘山东麓地区活动构造研究[J]. 国际地震动态, 1998, 28(7): 23-26.
(XIANG Hong-fa, GUO Shun-min, ZHANG Bing-liang, et al. Study on Active Structure in the Eastern Foot of Liupanshan Mountain[J]. Progress in Earthquake Sciences, 1998, 28(7): 23-26.) (in Chinese)
[24]
刘兴旺, 袁道阳, 史志刚, 等. 六盘山断裂带构造活动特征及流域盆地地貌响应[J]. 地震工程学报, 2015, 37(1):168-174,195.
(LIU Xing-wang, YUAN Dao-yang, SHI Zhi-gang, et al. Tectonic Activity Characteristics of the Liupanshan Fault Zone and Geomorphologic Response of Drainage Basin[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2015, 37(1): 168-174, 195.) (in Chinese)
[25]
刘伟. 深埋高地应力隧洞岩爆倾向性数值模拟分析[D]. 武汉: 长江科学院, 2021.
(LIU Wei. Numerical Simulation Analysis of Rockburst Tendency of Deep-buried and High-in-situ Stress Tunnels[D]. Wuhan: Changjiang River Scientiffic Research Institute, 2021.) (in Chinese)
[26]
岑成汉. 地下厂房区初始地应力反演回归分析[D]. 南京: 河海大学, 2007.
(CEN Cheng-han. Regression Analysis of Initial Geostress Field for Underground Workshop Area[D]. Nanjing: Hohai University, 2007.) (in Chinese)
[27]
黄书岭, 丁秀丽, 廖成刚, 等. 深切河谷区水电站厂址初始应力场规律研究及对地下厂房布置的思考[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2014, 33(11):2210-2224.
(HUANG Shu-ling, DING Xiu-li, LIAO Cheng-gang, et al. Initial 3D Geostress Field Recognition of High Geostress Field at Deep Valley Region and Considerations on Underground Powerhouse Layout[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2014, 33(11):2210-2224.) (in Chinese)
[28]
段淑倩, 孙远达, 熊杰程, 等. 高地应力判据及其影响因素研究综述[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2023, 19(3):1038-1050.
(DUAN Shu-qian, SUN Yuan-da, XIONG Jie-cheng, et al. A Review of Research on the Criteria of High Geostress and Its Influencing Factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2023, 19(3): 1038-1050.) (in Chinese)
Accurate evaluation of the geostress state and magnitude of engineering rock mass is an important prerequisite for underground engineering design, stability analysis and risk control. In order to clarify current situation of the theoretical study and engineering practice application of high geostress criteria, the direct or indirect influences of temperature, groundwater, tectonic movement, unfavorable geological condition, buried depth as well as the topography and geomorphology on the magnitude of geostress are detailed summarized. Several existing high geostress criteria are analyzed, combined with the latest research results, 18 kinds of geological markers of high geostress areas are summarized. The corresponding engineering phenomena and typical pictures of 13 geological indicators are further analyzed based on engineering phenomena, occurrence conditions and failure mechanisms. A reasonable evaluation of the universality of various criteria has been made, and it is pointed out that the strength-to-stress ratio criterion is a relatively authoritative criterion. Then, combined with engineering examples, the existing 6 calculation and classification methods of the strength-to-stress ratio method are compared. The most accurate strength-to-stress ratio criterion is dry uniaxial compressive strength ratio to maximum principal stress (<i>UCS</i><sub>drying</sub>/<i>σ</i><sub>1</sub>). Study results can provide references for the theoretical research and engineering practice of high geostress classification.
[29]
张镜剑, 傅冰骏. 岩爆及其判据和防治[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2008, 27(10): 2034-2042.
(ZHANG Jing-jian, FU Bing-jun. Rockburst and Its Criteria and Control[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 27(10): 2034-2042.) (in Chinese)
[30]
MARTIN C D, KAISER P K, MCCREATH D R. Hoek-brown Parameters for Predicting the Depth of Brittle Failure around Tunnels[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1999, 36(1): 136-151.
A review of underground openings, excavated in varying rock masstypes and conditions, indicates that the initiation of brittlefailure occurs when the damage index, Di, expressed as theratio of the maximum tangential boundary stress to the laboratoryunconfined compressive strength exceeds approx0.4. When thedamage index exceeds this value, the depth of brittle failure around a tunnel can be estimated by using a strengthenvelope based solely on cohesion, which in terms of theHoek-Brown parameters implies that m = 0. It is proposed that inthe brittle failure process peak cohesion and friction are notmobilized together, and that around underground openings thebrittle failure process is dominated by a loss of the intrinsiccohesion of the rock mass such that the frictional strengthcomponent can be ignored for estimating the depth of brittlefailure, an essential component in designing support for theopening. Case histories were analyzed using the Hoek-Brownfailure criterion, with traditional frictional parameters, and withthe proposed brittle rock mass parameters: m = 0 and s = 0.11. Theanalyses show that use of a rock mass failure criteria withfrictional parameters (m &gt; 0) significantly underpredicts thedepth of brittle failure while use of the brittle parametersprovides good agreement with field observations. Analyses usingthe brittle parameters also show that in intermediate stressenvironments, where stress-induced brittle failure is localized, atunnel with a flat roof is more stable than a tunnel with anarched roof. This is consistent with field observations. Hence,the Hoek-Brown brittle parameters can be used to estimate thedepth of brittle failure around tunnels, the support demand-loadscaused by stress-induced failure, and the optimum geometry of theopening.Key words: spalling, depth of failure, rock mass strength, brittle failure criterion, cohesion loss, Hoek-Brown brittle parameters
[31]
田朝阳, 兰恒星, 张宁, 等. 某交通线路色季拉山隧道高地应力岩爆风险定量预测研究[J]. 工程地质学报, 2022, 30(3): 621-634.
(TIAN Chao-yang, LAN Heng-xing, ZHANG Ning, et al. Quantitative Prediction of Rockburst Risk in Sejila Tunel of One Railway[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2022, 30(3): 621-634.) (in Chinese)
[32]
刘道胜. 西康二线秦岭翠华山特长隧道岩爆预测[J]. 铁道勘察, 2009, 35(3): 52-54.
(LIU Dao-sheng. Forecasted for Rock Burst of Cuihuashan Super Long Tunnel in Mountain Qinling on the Second Line of Xi’an-Ankang Railway[J]. Railway Investigation and Surveying, 2009, 35(3): 52-54.) (in Chinese)
PDF(8609 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/