Risk Assessment for Shield Tunneling Beneath Buildings Based on Interval Improved TOPSIS Method and FAHP Method

doi:10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2021.018

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to evaluate the impact of shield tunnel construction on adjacent buildings, a method based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and the interval number improvement technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is proposed. A risk assessment system based on soil properties, building factors, tunnel factors, shield tunneling parameters, and other factors is established after investigation. The FAHP is used to determine the weight of factors based on expert scoring. Based on the traditional TOPSIS method, 6 typical samples are selected according to the factor grading standard to determine the non-uniform risk rating criteria. For the first time, the interval improved TOPSIS method is applied to the risk assessment of shield tunneling beneath buildings. The engineering situation can be better represented by the interval number. Compared with traditional risk assessment methods, this method is more accurate, less affected by subjective factors, and more objective. The proposed method has been used to evaluate the risk of a certain masonry building, and the result is consistent with the actual situation, which proves its effectiveness of. Thus, the proposed method can provide reference for risk assessment of similar projects.

Key words: shield tunnel, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), risk assessment

CLC Number:

TU91

CHEN Renpeng, WANG Zhiteng, WU Huaina, LIU Yuan, MENG Fanyan. Risk Assessment for Shield Tunneling Beneath Buildings Based on Interval Improved TOPSIS Method and FAHP Method[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2022, 56(12): 1710-1719.

Figures/Tables 8

Tab.1

The criteria factor importance

语言描述	a	l	m	u
同等重要	$1 ~$	1	1	1
稍微重要	$3 ~$	1	3	5
明显重要	$5 ~$	3	5	7
强烈重要	$7 ~$	5	7	9
极端重要	$9 ~$	7	9	9
稍微不重要	$3 ~ - 1$	$15$	$13$	1
明显不重要	$5 ~ - 1$	$17$	$15$	$13$
强烈不重要	$7 ~ - 1$	$19$	$17$	$15$
极端不重要	$9 ~ - 1$	$19$	$19$	$17$

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Classification of risk indicator factors

评价指标		指标取值
评价指标		1级	2级	3级	4级	5级
土体性质	内摩擦角/(°)	[25, 45]	[15, 25)	[10, 15)	[5, 10)	[0, 5)
	黏聚力/kPa	[20, 25]	[15, 20)	[10, 15)	[5, 10)	[0, 5)
	压缩模量/MPa	[40, 60]	[20, 40)	[10, 20)	[5, 10)	[0, 5)
	地下水深度/m	[30, 50]	[20, 30)	[10, 20)	[5, 10)	[0, 5)
	复合地层专家评分	[80, 100] 不存在复合地层	[60, 80) 间断存在复合地层	[40, 60) 水平方向存在复合地层	[20, 40) 垂直方向存在复合地层	[0, 20) 垂直水平方向均存在复合地层
	软硬交界专家评分	[80, 100] 不存在软硬交界	[60, 80) 间断存在其他形式软硬交界地层	[40, 60) 间断存在上软下硬地层	[20, 40) 存在其他形式软硬交界地层	[0, 20) 存在上软下硬地层
	特殊地质专家评分	[80, 100] 不存在特殊地质	[60, 80) 间断存在特殊地质	[40, 60) 存在其他种类特殊地质	[20, 40) 存在断裂构造地质	[0, 20) 存在岩溶地质
建筑物因素	基础形式专家评分	[80, 100] 桩基础	[60, 80) 箱型或筏板基础	[40, 60) 条形基础	[20, 40) 混合基础或毛石基础	[0, 20) 无基础或形式不详
	上部结构形式专家评分	[80, 100] 框剪结构	[60, 80) 现浇式框架结构	[40, 60) 装配式框架结构	[20, 40) 砖混结构	[0, 20) 木结构
	重要性程度专家评分	[0, 20) 简易、临时建筑物	[20, 40) 普通建筑物	[40, 60) 比较重要的公共建筑和居住建筑	[60, 80) 重要的公共建筑物	[80, 100] 具有历史性、代表性的重要建筑物
	完损现状专家评分	[80, 100] 完好	[60, 80) 基本完好	[40, 60) 一般损坏	[20, 40) 严重损坏	[0, 20) 危险
隧道因素	隧道直径/m	[0, 5)	[5, 8)	[8, 12)	[12, 16)	[16, 20]
	隧道埋深/m	[30, 40]	[20, 30)	[15, 20)	[10, 15)	[0, 10)
	隧道与建筑物水平距离/m	[30, 40]	[20, 30)	[10, 20)	[5, 10)	[0, 5)
盾构掘进参数	掘进速度/ (mm·min^-1)	[0, 15)	[15, 30)	[30, 45)	[45, 60)	[60, 75]
	推力/MN	[0, 10)	[10, 15)	[15, 20)	[20, 25)	[25, 35]
	转矩/(MN·m)	[0, 1)	[1, 2)	[2, 3)	[3, 4)	[4, 5]
	注浆量/m³	[0, 7)	[7, 10)	[10, 12)	[12, 15)	[15, 25]
	土仓压力×10^-5/Pa	[0, 0.9)	[0.9, 1.8)	[1.8, 2.7)	[2.7, 3.6)	[3.6, 4.5]

Tab.3

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 10

[1]	CLARKE J A, LAEFER D F. Evaluation of risk assessment procedures for buildings adjacent to tunnelling works[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2014, 40: 333-342. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2013.10.014 URL
[2]	于丹丹, 双晴. 地铁隧道施工邻近建筑物安全风险评价[J]. 城市轨道交通研究, 2013, 16(4): 32-37.
	YU Dandan, SHUANG Qing. Safety risk evaluation of adjacent buildings during metro tunneling construction[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2013, 16(4): 32-37.
[3]	魏纲, 周琰. 邻近盾构隧道的建筑物安全风险模糊层次分析[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2014, 10(4): 956-961.
	WEI Gang, ZHOU Yan. Fuzzy assessment method combining AHP for safety risk of buildings caused by adjacent shield tunnel construction[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2014, 10(4): 956-961.
[4]	王烨晟, 陈文华. 受地铁工程影响建筑物安全风险等级评定研究[J]. 路基工程, 2015(3): 42-46.
	WANG Yesheng, CHEN Wenhua. Study on security risk grade evaluation standard of buildings influnced by metro tunneling construction[J]. Subgrade Engineering, 2015(3): 42-46.
[5]	彭道刚, 卫涛, 赵慧荣, 等. 基于D-AHP和TOPSIS的火电厂控制系统信息安全风险评估[J]. 控制与决策, 2019, 34(11): 2445-2451.
	PENG Daogang, WEI Tao, ZHAO Huirong, et al. Cyber security risk assessment of power plant control system based on D-AHP and TOPSIS[J]. Control and Decision, 2019, 34(11): 2445-2451.
[6]	TAYLAN O, BAFAIL A O, ABDULAAL R M S, et al. Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2014, 17: 105-116. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003 URL
[7]	ZHANG L M, WU X G, DING L Y, et al. Decision support analysis for safety control in complex project environments based on Bayesian networks[J]. Expert Systems With Applications, 2013, 40(11): 4273-4282. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.11.022 URL
[8]	ZHANG L M, DING L Y, WU X G, et al. An improved Dempster-Shafer approach to construction safety risk perception[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2017, 132: 30-46. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2017.06.014 URL
[9]	中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部, 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 城市轨道交通地下工程建设风险管理规范: GB 50652—2011[S]. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2012.
	Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Qua-rantine of the People’s Republic of China. Code for risk management of underground works in urban rail transit: GB 50652—2011[S]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2012.
[10]	陈仁朋, 曾巍, 吴怀娜, 等. 盾构隧道下穿引起砌体结构建筑沉降损伤实例研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2020, 42(12): 2301-2307.
	CHEN Renpeng, ZENG Wei, WU Huaina, et al. Case study of tunneling-induced settlement and da-mage of masonry buildings[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2020, 42(12): 2301-2307.

第一层次因素	权重	第二层次因素	权重	最终权重
土体性质	0.43	内摩擦角	0.14	0.060
		黏聚力	0.06	0.026
		压缩模量	0.14	0.060
		地下水深度	0.16	0.069
		复合地层	0.13	0.056
		软硬交界	0.19	0.082
		特殊地质	0.18	0.077
建筑物因素	0.23	基础形式	0.30	0.069
		上部结构形式	0.22	0.051
		重要性程度	0.27	0.062
		完损现状	0.21	0.048
隧道因素	0.23	隧道直径	0.20	0.046
		隧道埋深	0.47	0.108
		隧道与建筑物水平距离	0.33	0.076
盾构掘进参数	0.11	掘进速度	0.25	0.028
		推力	0.01	0.001
		转矩	0.02	0.002
		注浆量	0.39	0.043
		土仓压力	0.33	0.036

[1]	ZHU Yeting, MIN Rui, QIN Yuan, WU Wenfei, YUAN Peng, ZHAI Yixin, ZHU Yanfei. Development and Application of a Model Test Platform of Synchronous Technology Combining Shield Tunneling with Segment Assembling [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2022, 56(7): 897-907.
[2]	ZHOU Feng, LIU Haotian, LA Jiankai . Fatigue Analysis of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinders for Safety Risk Assessment [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Science), 2020, 25(3): 394-397.
[3]	XIA Zhenghong (夏正洪), ZHENG Bo (郑波), WAN Jian (万健), ZHU Xinping (朱新平). Recognition Algorithm and Risk Assessment of Airport Hotspots [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Science), 2019, 24(6): 769-774.
[4]	ZHANG Zixin,XIAO Shihui,LIU Tongwei,HUANG Xin,HE Ren. Field Test and Numerical Analysis of a New Water-Proof System for a Shield Tunnel [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2019, 53(6): 688-695.
[5]	YANG Junlong,MEN Yanqing,LIAO Shaoming,GAO Dongqi,SU Fengbin. The Effect and Construction Control of Large Diameter Shield Tunneling Under Railway Culvert [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2019, 53(3): 297-304.
[6]	YING Hongwei,SHEN Huawei,ZHANG Jinhong,ZHU Chengwei. Semi-Analytical Solution of Limit Support Pressure on Shield Tunnel Face Subjected to Water Level Fluctuation [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2018, 52(8): 982-990.
[7]	ZHU Yeting (朱叶艇), ZHANG Zixin (张子新), HUANG Xin (黄昕), ZHANG Guanjun (张冠军). Prototype Loading Tests on Full-Ring Segmental Lining of Rectangular Shield Tunnel [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Science), 2018, 23(6): 746-757.
[8]	WANG Wei, CHEN Guo-min, CHEN Qi, LU Yu, ZHANG Zong-chao. Reliability Calculation Analysis and Risk Assessment of Submarine Pipelines Under Corrosion Defects [J]. Ocean Engineering Equipment and Technology, 2018, 5(6): 390-395.
[9]	ZHANG Mengxi,ZHANG Zisheng,WANG Wei,Lü Yan,HAN Jiayao,JIN Qi. Discrete Element Analysis for Instability of Undercrossing Shield Tunnel Face [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2018, 52(12): 1594-1602.
[10]	HU Zhong-qian, LV Song-song, LI Zhong-tao, WANG Hong-hong. Application of Quantified Risk Assessment Technology in the Development of Deepwater Gas Field in the South China Sea [J]. Ocean Engineering Equipment and Technology, 2017, 4(4): 193-198.
[11]	ZHANG Fu-yuan* (张福元), LI Dong-yang (李东阳), GENG Bin (耿斌), LIU Zhan-ling (刘占岭). Risk Assessment of Contractor Support Based on Improved Risk Matrix Method [J]. Journal of shanghai Jiaotong University (Science), 2015, 20(4): 464-467.
[12]	LI Lei1,2,ZHANG Mengxi1,WU Huiming2. Influence of Metro Train Loading Calculation Methods on Dynamic Responses of Shield Tunnel [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2015, 49(07): 1030-1034.
[13]	ZHANG Xiaoqing1，ZHANG Mengxi1，WU Yingming2,LI Lei1，WANG Youcheng1. Model Test on Approaching Construction of Multi-line Overlapped Shield Tunnelling [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2015, 49(07): 1040-1045.
[14]	WANG Xiaoxia,YANG Fengbao,LIN Suzhen,SHI Dongmei. A Method of Risk Assessment Based on Flexible Similarity Measurement and Possibility Skewness [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2014, 48(10): 1440-1445.
[15]	ZHANG Zi-xin1* (张子新), SHEN Mang-jie1 (沈铓杰), TENG Li2 (滕丽). Back-Analysis of the Response of Shield Tunneling by 3D Finite Element Method [J]. Journal of shanghai Jiaotong University (Science), 2013, 18(3): 298-305.