山区公路隧道工作面坍塌事故风险定量分析研究
田涛 , 仝跃 , 李泽豫 , 徐捷 , 周鸣亮 , 金文滔 , 黄宏伟
隧道与地下工程灾害防治 ›› 2026, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (2) : 17 -31.
山区公路隧道工作面坍塌事故风险定量分析研究
Research on quantitative analysis of tunnel face collapse risk in mountain highway tunnel
针对当前隧道工程工作面坍塌风险这一特定事故的风险损失量化不足的现状,以钻爆法施工的云南山区公路隧道为对象,开展工作面坍塌事故风险损失的量化分析研究。通过构建融合发生概率与损失后果的风险量化框架,建立涵盖人员伤亡、工期延误及经济损失的量化计算模型,并基于ALARP原则制定相应的风险接受准则。研究聚焦于排险、出渣、立钢拱架、施作锚杆与喷射混凝土5个高风险工序,结合现场调研数据和各工序阶段坍塌风险的超越概率与损失规模,绘制人员伤亡F-N曲线、工期延误的F-TD曲线、经济损失的F-D曲线展开量化分析。结果表明,人员伤亡风险受作业人员时空分布影响显著,立钢拱架阶段风险最高;工期延误在小规模坍塌中主要由人员伤亡及后续整改主导,大规模坍塌则受清理与修复工作量控制;经济损失严重依赖人员抚恤支出与工期延误导致的间接成本,在我国西南地区,其占比常超过70%,致使中小规模坍塌已触及不可接受风险阈值。本研究可以为山区隧道施工安全的风险评估与管控提供一定的定量化依据。
Addressing the current lack of risk loss quantification for specific tunnel collapse incidents at tunnel faces, a quantitative analysis of risk losses associated with tunnel face collapses in mountainous highway tunnels in Yunnan constructed using the drill-and-blast method was conducted. By establishing a risk quantification framework integrating occurrence probability and loss consequences, a quantitative calculation model covering personnel casualties, project delays, and economic losses was developed. Corresponding risk acceptance criteria were formulated based on the ALARP principle. The study focused on five high-risk processes: hazard clearance, mucking, steel arch installation, anchor rod placement and shotcrete application. Combining field survey data with the exceedance probability and loss magnitude of collapse risks at each process stage, quantitative analysis was performed using F-N curves for casualties, F-TD curves for schedule delays, and F-D curves for economic losses. Results indicated that personnel injury risk was significantly influenced by workers' spatiotemporal distribution, peaking during steel arch installation. Schedule delays in minor collapses were primarily driven by casualties and subsequent rectification, while major collapses were controlled by cleanup and repair workloads. Economic losses heavily depended on personnel compensation and indirect costs from schedule delays, often exceeding 70% of total losses in Southwest China, suggesting that even small-to-medium collapses may reach unacceptable risk thresholds. This study provides quantitative insights for risk assessment and management in mountain tunnel construction safety.
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
黄宏伟, 陈桂香. 风险管理在降低地铁造价中的作用[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2003, 40(5): 1-6. |
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
陈龙, 黄宏伟. 岩石隧道工程风险浅析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2005, 24(1): 110-115. |
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
闫玉茹, 黄宏伟, 胡群芳, |
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
王燕, 黄宏伟, 薛亚东. 钻爆法施工隧道塌方风险分析[J]. 沈阳建筑大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 25(1): 23-27. |
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
杨立, 夏增选, 娄文杰, |
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
仝跃, 朱子越, 陈俊武, |
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
周宗青, 李术才, 李利平, |
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
张永刚, 王永红, 王梦恕. 渤海湾海底隧道工程施工风险评估与控制分析[J]. 土木工程学报, 2015, 48(增刊1): 414-418. |
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
李启弟, 梁庆国, 周仁, |
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
杨云. 穿越断层破碎带铁路隧道施工安全多重风险管理研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2022: 72-76. |
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
胡群芳, 黄宏伟. 隧道及地下工程风险接受准则计算模型研究[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2006, 2(1): 60-64. |
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
周杨. 长大隧道工程建设期风险接受准则研究[D]. 上海: 同济大学, 2007: 80-82. |
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
赵峰, 夏永旭, 常海兵. 中国公路隧道运营风险接受准则研究[J]. 中外公路, 2014, 34(6): 191-197. |
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
李燕庭. 铁路建设工程风险分级标准研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2014: 44-51. |
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
仝跃, 黄宏伟, 张东明, |
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
仝跃, 岳瑶, 黄宏伟, |
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
李泽豫, 周鸣亮, 黄宏伟, |
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
中华人民共和国交通运输部 . 公路隧道施工技术规范: JTG/T 3660—2020[S]. 北京: 人民交通出版社, 2020: 12-13. |
| [55] |
李典庆, 唐文勇, 张圣坤. 海洋工程风险接受准则研究进展[J]. 海洋工程, 2003, 21(2): 96-102. |
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
毛建平, 张望彬. 基于模糊综合评判法的工期风险分析[J]. 施工技术, 2009, 38(增刊2): 358-359. |
| [61] |
|
云南省基础研究计划资助项目(202301AU070098)
云南省交通运输厅科技资助项目(云交科教便〔2023〕146号)
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |