地下工程建设对岩溶水流场的影响及其修复

邢立亭; 于苗; 宿庆伟; 赵振华; 高扬; 张云峰

doi:10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2022.0190

地下工程建设对岩溶水流场的影响及其修复

doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2022.0190

1.
济南大学水利与环境学院, 济南 250022
2.
山东省地矿工程勘察院, 济南 250014

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 41772257

济南市高校院所创新团队项目 2018GXRC012

详细信息

作者简介:
邢立亭(1966—)，男，教授，博士生导师，主要从事水文地质学教学与研究工作。E-mail：xlting596@163.com

中图分类号: P641.134
计量
- 文章访问数: 574
- PDF下载量: 47
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-06-15
- 网络出版日期: 2022-11-10

Influence and repair of underground engineering construction on karst flow field

1.
School of Water Conservancy and Environment, University of Jinan, Jinan 250022, China
2.
Shandong Provincial Geo-mineral Engineering Exploration Institute, Jinan 250014, China

摘要

摘要:
工程建设改变地下水流场危及建筑物的安全。以济南经十路沿线大型地下综合体为例, 通过数值模拟计算工程建设对地下水渗流场的影响, 并建立了地下水流场修复模型。结果表明: 地下空间结构会阻挡地下水运移, 地下水水位壅高造成地基承载力降低; 将地下工程设置导流措施后, 其迎水面水位随时间呈现衰减趋势, 且越接近天然状态水位衰减速率越慢; 因地层结构差异, 壅高水位基本回落的时间存在较大差异; 不同地质条件下流场修复所需导流井数量与导流几何体结构参数呈负相关关系, 所需导流井数量的预测方程反映了地质条件的复杂性和多变性。除导流几何体自身结构外, 围岩水力梯度与渗透系数对导水能力产生影响, 其中渗透系数大小制约导水速率的快慢, 水力梯度则控制导水行为的发生。导流措施的实施可减小工程建设对地下水环境的影响, 确保地下工程建设对水环境影响可控。
- 岩溶区 /
- 地下工程 /
- 地下水 /
- 渗流 /
- 流场修复
Abstract:
Engineering construction changes the groundwater flow field and endanger the safety of buildings. Taking the large-scale underground complex along Jinan Jingshi Road as an example, the impact of engineering construction on the groundwater seepage field is obtained by numerical simulation, and the groundwater flow field repair models are established. These results show that the underground spatial structure will block the normal movement of groundwater, and will reduce the bearing capacity of the foundation after the groundwater level is raised. After adding diversion measures to the underground space, the water level at the upstream surface will decrease with time, and the closer it is to the natural state, the slower the water level attenuation rate is. Due to the difference in the stratum structure, there is a great difference in the time when the backwater level basically drops. The number of diversion wells required to repair the flow field under different geological conditions has a negative correlation with the structural parameters of diversion geometry. The established equation for predicting the number of diversion wells fully reflects the complexity and variability of geological conditions in karst areas. In addition to the structure of the fluid conducting geometry, the hydraulic gradient and permeability coefficient of the surrounding rock also affect the water conducting capacity of diversion measures. The permeability coefficient controls the speed of the water conducting rate, while the hydraulic gradient controls the occurrence of water conducting behavior. The implementation of diversion measures can reduce the impact of engineering construction on the groundwater environment and ensure that the impact of underground engineering construction on the water environment is controllable.
- karst area /
- underground construction /
- groundwater /
- seepage /
- flow field repair

HTML全文

图 1 济南经十路千佛山断裂-文化桥断裂段地质剖面示意图

Figure 1. Geological profile of the Qianfoshan fault-Wenhuaqiao fault in Jingshilu, Jinan

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK)三维模型示意图

Figure 2. 3D model of subterranean construction in karst(SCK type)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK)有限元模型网格剖分

Figure 3. Finite element mesh generation of subterranean construction in karst(SCK type)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 山师东路综合体长期观测点分布图

Figure 4. Distribution of long-term observation points of the underground complex on Shanshi East Road

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 天然状态下实测水位与流场模拟水位对比图

Figure 5. Comparison between simulated water level and actual observed water level of seepage field under natural state

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 不同类型模型天然流场分布情况

a.碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK)；b.土体单层结构类型(SCS)

Figure 6. Distribution of natural flow field of different type model

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 地下综合体建设后渗流场模拟结果

a.碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK)；b.土体单层结构类型(SCS)

Figure 7. Simulation results of the seepage field after foundation construction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 地下工程建设前后迎水面边界水位变化情况

a.碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK)；b.土体单层结构类型(SCS)

Figure 8. Variation in the water level at the boundary of the upstream surface before and after underground buildings construction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 地下水位影响建筑物地基深度示意图

D.基础埋深；Z.地下水位距基底底面距离；h.对地基承载力产生影响的地下水深度；B.基础宽度

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the underground water level affecting the foundation depth

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 U型导水通道示意图

Figure 10. Schematic diagram of the U-shaped diversion channel

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 增加导流措施后计算区流场模拟结果

a.碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK); b.土体单层结构类型(SCS)

Figure 11. Flow field simulation results of the calculation area after set diversion measures

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 导流井数量与影响指标的关系

Figure 12. Relationship between the quantity of diversion wells and impact indicators

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 13 预估模型计算值与实测值吻合程度

Figure 13. Degree of coincidence between the calculated value of the prediction model and the test value

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 14 增加导流措施后水位衰减历时曲线

a.碳酸盐岩单层结构类型(SCK); b.土体单层结构类型(SCS)

Figure 14. Water level attenuation duration curve after adding diversion measures

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 不同结构类型边界条件设置

Table 1. Boundary condition settings of different models

边界条件	山师东路商业综合体(SCK)	纬十二路商业综合体(SCS)
水流入口	南侧边界	南侧边界
水流出口	北侧边界	北侧边界
开放边界	东、西边界	东、西边界
第四系潜水含水层入口水位/m	—	42.0~43.40
第四系承压水含水层入口水位/m	—	39.7~41.09
碳酸盐岩裂隙岩溶水及闪长岩风化裂隙含水层入口水位/m	68.8~69.6	36.9~38.21
出口水位/m	66.5~68.0	36.4~42.1

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 相关参数设置

Table 2. Relevant parameter settings

岩土层		渗透系数(m/d)				孔隙度		备注
		试验值/经验值	模型计算值			试验值/经验值	模型计算值
		试验值/经验值	K_x	K_y	K_z	试验值/经验值	模型计算值
碳酸盐岩单层结构(山师东路商业综合体为例)	杂填土	2	2.04	1.26	0.02	0.3	0.30	位于历史最高水位以上
	粉质黏土	10^-3~10^-4	0.003	0.006 2	0.01	0.3~0.45	0.30
	碎石	3~10^[28]	8	3	0.1	0.24~0.36	0.25
	破碎白云岩	0.003 9~0.01	0.007	0.012	0.003	0.05~0.20	0.25	位于历史最高水位以下
	中风化白云岩	1.5~14.5	1.73	0.9	0.001	0.02~0.30^[31]	0.3
	溶洞(粉质黏土及碎石充填)	—	2.62	0.13	0.006	—	0.6
土体单层结构(纬十二路商业综合体为例)	杂填土	0.5	0.7	0.04	0.01	0.33~0.66	0.45	位于历史最高水位以上
	黄土	0.26~0.50^[29]	0.55	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.25	位于历史最高水位以上
	碎石	>50^[30]	70	8	70	0.40^[31]	0.36	位于历史最高水位以下
	粉质黏土1	0.024	0.065	0.03	0.015	0.4~0.6	0.32
	粉质黏土2	0.001~0.05	0.004	0.012	0.025	0.4~0.6	0.28
	含碎石粉质黏土	0.001~0.05^[28]	0.009	0.02	0.12	0.3	0.32
	碎石	45~57	30	24	5	0.33~0.35	0.33
	全风化闪长岩	0.11	0.181	0.07	0.03	0.01~0.15^[31]	0.05
	强风化闪长岩	< 0.11	0.01	0.013	0.013	0.01~0.15	0.13
	中风化闪长岩	0.108~0.114	0.12	0.032	0.012	0.01~0.15	0.08

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 天然状态下流场实测水位与模拟水位对比结果

Table 3. Results of the observed water level and simulated water level in the natural state 单位: m

山师东路地下综合体				纬十二路地下综合体
坐标(x, y)	实测水位	模拟水位	绝对误差	坐标(x, y)	实测水位	模拟水位	绝对误差
0, 0	69.500	69.485	-0.015	0, 0	42.000	42.000	0.000
50, 0	69.500	69.518	0.018	50, 0	42.133	42.133	0.000
100, 0	69.500	69.524	0.024	100，0	42.267	42.267	0.000
150, 0	69.500	69.515	0.015	150, 0	42.400	42.400	0.000
200, 0	69.500	69.484	-0.016	200, 0	42.533	42.533	0.000
250, 0	69.500	69.538	0.038	250, 0	42.667	42.667	0.000
300, 0	69.600	69.552	-0.048	300, 0	42.800	42.800	0.000
350, 0	69.622	69.606	-0.016	350, 0	42.933	42.933	0.000
400, 0	69.786	69.835	0.049	400, 0	43.063	43.063	0.000
0, 20	68.593	68.583	-0.010	450, 0	43.200	43.200	0.000
50, 20	68.669	68.691	0.022	500, 0	43.398	43.398	0.000
100, 20	68.754	68.787	0.033	0, 50	41.879	41.822	-0.057
150, 20	68.877	68.886	0.009	50, 50	41.932	41.852	-0.080
250, 20	69.075	69.089	0.014	150, 50	42.140	42.038	-0.101
300, 20	69.191	69.171	-0.021	200, 50	42.264	42.222	-0.042
350, 20	69.290	69.288	-0.002	250, 50	42.405	42.388	-0.018
400, 20	69.354	69.351	-0.003	300, 50	42.533	42.526	-0.008
0, 40	67.740	67.597	-0.143	350, 50	42.650	42.650	0.000
50, 40	67.843	67.652	-0.191	400, 50	42.784	42.793	0.009
100, 40	68.057	68.096	0.040	450, 50	42.886	42.885	-0.001
150, 40	68.264	68.244	-0.021	500, 50	42.982	42.983	0.001
200, 40	68.481	68.502	0.021	0, 100	41.628	41.536	-0.092
250, 40	68.643	68.639	-0.004	50, 100	41.666	41.554	-0.111
300, 40	68.791	68.757	-0.034	100, 100	41.741	41.592	-0.149
350, 40	68.952	68.919	-0.033	150, 100	41.864	41.717	-0.147
400, 40	69.002	68.991	-0.011	200, 100	41.987	41.919	-0.068
0，60	66.838	66.881	0.043	250, 100	42.120	42.102	-0.018
50, 60	66.915	66.883	-0.033	300, 100	42.249	42.246	-0.003
100, 60	67.284	67.210	-0.074	350, 100	42.370	42.371	0.000
150, 60	67.642	67.744	0.102	400, 100	42.503	42.508	0.006
200, 60	67.973	68.008	0.035	450, 100	42.590	42.589	-0.001
250, 60	68.222	68.264	0.043	500, 100	42.647	42.647	0.001
300, 60	68.422	68.430	0.008	0, 150	41.295	41.202	-0.092
350, 60	68.618	68.595	-0.023	50, 150	41.338	41.235	-0.103
400, 60	68.693	68.710	0.017	100, 150	41.434	41.298	-0.136
0，80	66.537	66.499	-0.038	150, 150	41.574	41.414	-0.160
50, 80	66.665	66.625	-0.040	200, 150	41.701	41.613	-0.088
100, 80	66.717	66.671	-0.046	250, 150	41.825	41.825	0.000
150, 80	66.934	66.895	-0.039	300, 150	41.986	41.986	0.000
200, 80	67.436	67.465	0.029	350, 150	42.120	42.138	0.018
250, 80	67.783	67.831	0.048	400, 150	42.270	42.281	0.011
300, 80	68.032	68.034	0.002	450, 150	42.335	42.335	0.000
350, 80	68.292	68.307	0.015	500, 150	42.376	42.377	0.000
400, 80	68.413	68.382	-0.031	0, 200	40.839	40.780	-0.059
0，100	66.208	66.165	-0.043	50, 200	40.930	40.881	-0.049
50, 100	66.361	66.378	0.018	100, 200	41.101	41.046	-0.055
100, 100	66.598	66.603	0.005	150, 200	41.277	41.210	-0.067
150, 100	66.661	66.623	-0.039	200, 200	41.416	41.378	-0.039
200, 100	66.914	66.947	0.033	250, 200	41.566	41.565	-0.002
250, 100	67.325	67.366	0.042	300, 200	41.749	41.749	0.000
300, 100	67.614	67.618	0.004	350, 200	41.858	41.875	0.017
350, 100	67.976	67.986	0.010	400, 200	41.972	42.020	0.048
400, 100	68.162	68.152	-0.011	450, 200	42.090	42.089	-0.001
0, 120	65.830	65.875	0.045	500, 200	42.152	42.152	0.000
50, 120	66.055	66.054	-0.001
100, 120	66.322	66.337	0.015
150, 120	66.562	66.596	0.034
200, 120	66.702	66.730	0.029
250, 120	66.883	66.849	-0.033
300, 120	67.130	67.160	0.030
350, 120	67.682	67.709	0.027
400, 120	67.946	67.928	-0.018

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 导流通道几何结构方案设定

Table 4. Geometric structure scheme setting of the diversion channel

几何结构	具体规格
垂向导流井直径D/mm	方案1	168
	方案2	277
	方案3	325
	方案4	377
地下结构上下游之间导水通道矩形断面边长L₁/mm	500~1 500
相邻导流井之间导水通道断面边长L₂/mm	500
导流管内填充物渗透系数K_d/(m·d^-1)	10~30

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 等效渗透系数计算

Table 5. Calculation of the equivalent permeability coefficient

岩土体结构	岩土层	渗透系数Kx/(m·d^-1)	地层厚度均值/m	等效渗透系数K_p/(m·d^-1)
碳酸盐岩单层结构(山师东路商业综合体为例)	杂填土	2.04	2.43	3.25
	粉质黏土	2	4.76
	碎石	15	12.66
	破碎白云岩	0.7	13.24
	中风化白云岩	0.03	32.75
	溶洞(粉质黏土及碎石充填)	2.62	0.51
土体单层结构(纬十二路商业综合体为例)	杂填土	0.7	2.1	2.63
	黄土	0.55	3.04
	碎石	70	4.31
	粉质黏土1	0.065	1.02
	粉质黏土2	0.004	3.4
	含碎石粉质黏土	2.55	6.99
	碎石	30	2.26
	全风化闪长岩	0.081	15.37
	强风化闪长岩	0.015	3.62
	中风化闪长岩	0.06	22.48

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 因素水平

Table 6. Factor level

水平号	垂向导流井直径D/mm	导流通道断面边长L₁/mm	导流管渗透系数K_d/(m·d^-1)	地层等效渗透系数K_p/(m·d^-1)
水平号	垂向导流井直径D/mm	导流通道断面边长L₁/mm	导流管渗透系数K_d/(m·d^-1)	K_SCK	K_SCS
1	168	500	10	3.25	2.63
2	277	800	20
3	325	1 000	25
4	377	1 500	30

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 SCK和SCS导流修复正交试验结果

Table 7. Orthogonal test results of SCK and SCS diversion restoration

方案	D/mm	L₁/mm	K_d/(m·d^-1)	K_SCK/(m·d^-1)	N_SCK/组	K_SCS/(m·d^-1)	N_SCS/组
1	168	500	10	3.25	11	2.63	19
2	168	800	20	3.25	9	2.63	13
3	168	1 000	25	3.25	8	2.63	12
4	168	1 500	30	3.25	7	2.63	8
5	277	500	20	3.25	9	2.63	11
6	277	800	10	3.25	7	2.63	10
7	277	1 000	30	3.25	6	2.63	9
8	277	1 500	25	3.25	6	2.63	9
9	325	500	25	3.25	7	2.63	10
10	325	800	25	3.25	7	2.63	9
11	325	1 000	10	3.25	8	2.63	10
12	325	1 500	20	3.25	7	2.63	7
13	377	500	30	3.25	8	2.63	6
14	377	800	25	3.25	7	2.63	8
15	377	1 000	20	3.25	7	2.63	7
16	377	1 500	10	3.25	8	2.63	9
注: N_SCK和N_SCS分别代表壅水回落所需最少导流井数量

下载: 导出CSV

表 8 模型性能评价指标及评价结果

Table 8. Model performance evaluation indexes and evaluation results

评价准则	有效性 (Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency: NSE)准则^[40]	百分比偏差 (Percent Bias: PBIAS)准则^[40]	相对误差 (mean relative error: MRE)准则^[41]
公式	$N S E=1-\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\left(E_i-P_i\right)^2}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\left(E_i-\bar{E}\right)^2}$	$ { PBIAS }=\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\left(E_i-P_i\right) \times 100}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n E_i}$	$M R E=\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i=1}^n\left\|\frac{E_i-P_i}{E_i}\right\| \times 100$
目的	评价模型结算结果的有效性	评价平均计算趋势较实测值的偏离状态	评价模型的计算误差效果
准则	取值范围为(-∞, 1], 当计算值与实测值完全相等时NSE值为1, NSE值越小, 模型计算结果的有效性越差, 但NSE准则不能用于评价模型计算值总体低估或高估的状态	PBIAS值越接近零, 代表计算值越精确。PBIAS>0代表计算值总体处于低估状态, 反之则高估	MRE值较小, 表明对模型的预测效果更好
本文SCK模型结果	0.840 5	-8.196×10^-8 %	4.600 4%
本文SCS模型结果	0.906 7	4.525 75×10^-16 %	9.2438 %
注: 表中E_i为第i个实测值；P_i为第i个计算值；E为实测值的均值；n为实测值数量

下载: 导出CSV

表 9 不同条件下壅水消失所需时间

Table 9. Time required for backwater disappearance under different conditions 单位: h

岩溶地层渗透系数K/(m·d^-1)	地下空间基础上下游水力梯度J
岩溶地层渗透系数K/(m·d^-1)	0~0.05	0.1	0.5	1.0	1.5
0.001~0.01	NULL	13.70	3.20	1.40	0.38
0.03	NULL	13.50	3.20	1.40	0.38
0.1	NULL	13.50	2.80	1.32	0.35
0.5	NULL	13.40	2.40	1.32	0.35
0.8	NULL	13.10	2.40	1.30	0.35
1	NULL	12.30	2.30	1.26	0.33
10	NULL	12.00	2.10	1.10	0.28
20	NULL	11.50	1.80	1.06	0.27
30	NULL	11.30	1.73	0.88	0.27
50	NULL	11.00	1.58	0.82	0.22
100	NULL	10.90	1.36	0.80	0.17
200	NULL	10.70	0.95	0.76	0.13
500	NULL	10.50	0.81	0.15	0.05
1000	NULL	10.50	0.50	0.02	0.01
注: NULL代表壅水无法预期回落

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(42)

[1]	成建梅, 柳璨, 李敏敏, 等. 城市化进程下北京平原渗流场与地面沉降发展演化模拟[J]. 地质科技通报, 2020, 39(1): 43-52. doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2020.0105 Cheng J M, Liu C, Li M M, et al. Numerical study on evolution of groundwater hydrodynamics and land subsidence under the process of metro politan urbanization in Beijing Plain, China[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology, 2020, 39(1): 43-52(in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2020.0105
[2]	郭红东, 魏林森, 郑伟, 等. 地铁工程对兰州断陷盆地地下水环境的影响分析[J]. 水利水电技术, 2020, 51(8): 119-128. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SJWJ202008015.htm Guo H D, Wei L S, Zheng W, et al. Impact from subway project on groundwater environment in Lanzhou fault basin[J]. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, 2020, 51(8): 119-128(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SJWJ202008015.htm
[3]	Kontanz P O. 地下隧道和输水建筑物对地下水流动的影响[J]. 赵鹤平, 译. 地理译报, 1989(3): 29-31. Kontanz P O. Effect on groundwater flow due to tunnel and pipe constructions[J]. Transtated by Zhao H P. Progress in Geography, 1989(3): 29-31 (in Chinese).
[4]	Sun S Q, Li L P, Wang J, et al. Karst development mechanism and characteristics based on comprehensive exploration along Jinan metro, China[J]. Sustainability, 2018, 10(10): 3383. doi: 10.3390/su10103383
[5]	卢海平, 张发旺, 赵春红, 等. 我国南北方岩溶差异[J]. 中国矿业, 2018, 27(增刊2): 317-319. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGKA2018S2085.htm Lu H P, Zhang F W, Zhao C H, et al. Difference between southern karst and northern karst besides scientific issues that need attention[J]. China Mining Maganine, 2018, 27(S2): 317-319(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGKA2018S2085.htm
[6]	李喜, 殷坤龙, 陈标典, 等. 武汉白沙洲长江两岸岩溶塌陷易发性评价与地铁建设过程中的防治对策[J]. 地质科技通报, 2020, 39(6): 121-130. doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2020.0612 Li X, Yin K L, Chen B D, et al. Evaluation of susceptibility to karst collapse on both sides of the Yangtze River in Baishazhou, Wuhan and preventive measures in the process of metro construction[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology, 2020, 39(6): 121-130(in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2020.0612
[7]	Cui Q L, Wu H N, Shen S L, et al. Chinese karst geology and measures to prevent geohazards during shield tunnelling in karst region with caves[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 77(1): 129-152. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1585-6
[8]	Wang X, Lai J, He S, et al. Karst geology and mitigation measures for hazards during metro system construction in Wuhan, China[J]. Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2020, 103(4): 2905-2927.
[9]	Qu R F, Zhou C B. On the influence of karst collapse on subway tunnel and karst treatment in Wuhan[J]. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 21(10): 3979-3992.
[10]	Ding L Y, Wu X G, Li H, et al. Study on safety control for Wuhan metro construction in complex environments[J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2011, 29(7): 797-807. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.04.006
[11]	邓国基, 黄佳铭, 郑小战, 等. 广州市白云区岩溶发育特征与分布规律研究[J]. 中国地名, 2019(10): 54-56. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NAME201910031.htm Deng G J, Huang J M, Zheng X Z, et al. Study on karst development characteristics and distribution in Baiyun District, Guangzhou[J]. China Place Name, 2019(10): 54-56(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NAME201910031.htm
[12]	秦俭, 李身想. 浅谈南北方岩溶地貌差异成因[J]. 科技展望, 2014(14): 192. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8289.2014.14.169 Qin J, Li S X. On the causes of karst landform differences between South and North[J]. Science and Technology, 2014(14): 192(in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8289.2014.14.169
[13]	刘光亚. 中国北方的岩溶水强径流带[J]. 河北地质大学学报, 2017, 40(2): 15-19. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HBDX201702003.htm Liu G Y. Strong runoff zone in karst water in northern China[J]. Journal of Hebei GEO University, 2017, 40(2): 15-19(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HBDX201702003.htm
[14]	叶安强, 张洋, 杨士友. 岩溶地区地下工程建设对地下水渗流的影响分析[J]. 西部资源, 2020(6): 102-104. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XBZY202006035.htm Ye A Q, Zhang Y, Yang S Y. Influence of underground engineering construction on groundwater seepage in karst area[J]. Western Resources, 2020(6): 102-104(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XBZY202006035.htm
[15]	Colombo L, Gattinoni P, Scesi L. Influence of underground structures and infrastructures on the groundwater level in the urban area of milan, Italy[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 2017, 12(1): 176-184.
[16]	Esther S, Hyoung-Soo K, Kyoochul H, et al. Regional groundwater flow characteristics due to the subway system in Seoul, Korea[J]. Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment, 2015, 20(3): 41-50.
[17]	Lan Y Y. Analysis of the influence of Nanchang Metro Line 4 on groundwater[J]. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 2017, 61(1): 012112.
[18]	Li F K, Gong H L, Chen B B, et al. Subsidence monitoring with Terra SAR-X data in Beijing Central Business District and subway tunnelings, China[J]. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 2020, 382(4): 125-130.
[19]	Ma Q Q, Li W T, Zhang Y J. Subway tunnel construction settlement analysis based on the combination of numerical simulation and neural network[J]. Scientific Programming, 2021(4): 46478744.
[20]	Wang J X, Deng Y S, Xu N, et al. Numerical simulation of land subsidence caused by subway train vibration using PFC[J]. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 2020, 382(4): 559-564.
[21]	赵振华, 邢立亭, 王立艳, 等. 济南市区轨道交通建设适宜性评价[J]. 铜业工程, 2017(3): 42-46. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TYGC201703013.htm Zhao Z H, Xing L T, Wang L Y, et al. Subway construction suitability evaluation in Jinan urban area[J]. Copper Engineering, 2017(3): 42-46(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TYGC201703013.htm
[22]	郭红梅. 地下水数值模拟在济南地铁规划中的应用研究[J]. 勘察科学技术, 2012(5): 36-41. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KCKX201205010.htm Guo H M. Application of groundwater numerical simulation on subway plan in Jinan[J]. Site Investigation Science and Technology, 2012(5): 36-41(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KCKX201205010.htm
[23]	庞炜, 刘永勤, 戴迎春. 济南轨道交通建设对泉水影响预测及情景分析[J]. 都市快轨交通, 2012, 25(1): 94-98. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DSKG201201024.htm Pang W, Liu Y Q, Dai Y C. Prediction and scenario analysis of the influence of urban rail transit consrtuction on spring ecosytem in Jinan City[J]. Urban Rapid Rail Transit, 2012, 25(1): 94-98(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DSKG201201024.htm
[24]	王国富, 王倩, 路林海, 等. 济南轨道交通某深基坑降水与回灌数值分析[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2017, 13(5): 1280-1288. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BASE201705020.htm Wang G F, Wang Q, Lu L H, et al. Numerical analysis on dewatering and recharging of a deep foundation pit of Jinan railway[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2017, 13(5): 1280-1288(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BASE201705020.htm
[25]	李严, 王家乐, 靳孟贵, 等. 运用水文时间序列分析识别济南泉域岩溶发育特征[J]. 地球科学, 2021, 46(7): 2583-2593. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQKX202107024.htm Li Y, Wang J L, Jin M G, et al. Hydrodynamic characteristics of Jinan karst spring system identified by hydrologic time-series data[J]. Earth Science, 2021, 46(7): 2583-2593(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQKX202107024.htm
[26]	孙尚渠. 复杂形态溶洞精细化表征及其对盾构隧道施工围岩稳定性的影响研究[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2019. Sun S Q. Precise characterization of irregular cavity and its effect on surrounding rockmass stability of shield tunnel[D]. Jinan: Shandong University, 2019(in Chinese with English abstract).
[27]	徐军祥, 邢立亭, 魏鲁峰, 等. 济南岩溶水系统研究[M]. 北京: 冶金工业出版社, 2012. Xu J X, Xing L T, Wei L F. Study on karst water system in Jinan[M]. Beijing: Metallurgical Industry Press, 2012(in Chinese).
[28]	林宗元. 岩土工程试验监测手册[M]. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2005. Lin Z Y. Geotechnical engineering test monitoring manual[M]. Beijing: China Architecture and Architecture Press, 2005(in Chinese).
[29]	毛昶熙. 堤防工程手册[M]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2009. Mao C X. Dike engineering manual[M]. Beijing: China Water and Power Press, 2009(in Chinese).
[30]	Zheng C M, Bennett G D. 地下水污染物迁移模拟[M]. 孙晋玉译. 第2版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009. Zheng C M, Bennett G D. Simulation of groundwater pollutant migration[M]. Translated by Sun J Y. Second Edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2009(in Chinese).
[31]	朱学愚. 地下水水文学[M]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2005. Zhu X Y. Groundwater hydrology[M]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2005(in Chinese).
[32]	阳建新, 李发菊, 陈田华. 地下水位上升对浅基础地基承载力的影响[J]. 工程建设与设计, 2010(6): 95-99. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCJS201006033.htm Yang J X, Li F J, Chen T H. The influence about water table rise on bering capacity of shallow foundations[J]. Construction & Design for Engineering, 2010(6): 95-99(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCJS201006033.htm
[33]	张江. 地下水对地铁车站结构底板的受力影响研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2017. Zhang J. Study on the influence of groundwater level on mechanical behavior of subway station floor[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University, 2017(in Chinese with English abstract).
[34]	毛邦燕, 许模, 唐万春, 等. 地铁建设中地下水与环境岩土体相互作用研究[J]. 人民长江, 2009, 40(16): 49-52. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RIVE200916021.htm Mao B Y, Xu M, Tang W C, et al. Study on the interaction between groundwater and environmental rock and soil in subway construction[J]. Yangtze River, 2009, 40(16): 49-52(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RIVE200916021.htm
[35]	周健, 屠洪权, 缪俊发. 地下水位与环境岩土工程[M]. 上海: 同济大学出版社, 1995. Zhou J, Tu H Q, Miu J F. Groundwater level and environmental geotechnical engineering[M]. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 1995(in Chinese).
[36]	滕延京. 建筑地基基础设计规范理解与应用[M]. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2004. Teng Y J. Understanding and application of building foundation design code[M]. Beijing: China Architecture and Architecture Press, 2004(in Chinese).
[37]	周健, 屠洪权. 地下水位上升与粘性土地基承载力[J]. 岩土力学, 1994(2): 62-69. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX402.007.htm Zhou J, Tu H Q. Groundwater level rise and bearing capacity of cohesive soil foundation[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 1994(2): 62-69(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX402.007.htm
[38]	赵瑞, 许模, 张强, 等. 成都地铁7号线地下水壅高引起的环境地质问题定量化研究[J]. 城市轨道交通研究, 2016, 19(9): 80-86. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GDJT201609022.htm Zhao R, Xu M, Zhang Q, et al. Quantitative research on the geo-environment problems caused by rising water level during the construction of Chengdu metro line 7[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2016, 19(9): 80-86(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GDJT201609022.htm
[39]	薛禹群, 吴吉春. 地下水动力学[M]. 第3版. 北京: 地质出版社, 2010. Xue Y Q, Wu J C. Groundwater dynamics[M]. Third Edition. Beijing: Geology Press, 2010(in Chinese).
[40]	张常光, 单冶鹏, 高本贤. 考虑挡墙位移的土压力数学拟合新方法研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2021, 40(10): 2124-2135. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX202110016.htm Zhang C G, Shan Y P, Gao B X. A new mathematical fitting formulation of earth pressure considering the displacement of retaining walls[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2021, 40(10): 2124-2135(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YSLX202110016.htm
[41]	Naghadeh R A, Toker N K. Exponential equation for predicting shear trength envelope of unsaturated soils[J]. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2019, 19(7): 04019061.
[42]	邹立芝. 关于储水系数的概念[J]. 长春地质学院学报, 1982, 4(3): 123-124. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CCDZ198203013.htm Zou L Z. On the concept of water storage coefficient[J]. Journal of Changchun University of Earth Sciences, 1982, 4(3): 123-124(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CCDZ198203013.htm