基于有限云模型的深基坑安全性研究

doi:10.11872/j.issn.1005-2518.2019.01.072

Abstract

Abstract:

Deep foundation pit engineering is a large and complex system engineering，and its safety evaluation is influenced and controlled by many uncertainty factors，which has the characteristics of limited interval distribution of evaluation indexes and fuzzy grade boundaries. In order to reduce the adverse effects of randomness and ambiguity of boundary information of foundation pit safety evaluation index on the evaluation results，a comprehensive evaluation model of foundation pit safety based on finite interval cloud theory was constructed.According to industry standards and related research results，the evaluation index system and classification criteria of foundation pit safety were determined，and the cloud digital features of each evaluation index belonging to different classification levels were calculated.The cloud model was generated by using MATLAB programming software with the positive cloud generator of limited interval.According to the measured data of the sample，the degree of certainty of each security level was calculated.Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is easy to calculate and the results are clear，but the process of judgment matrix subjectivity and consistency checking is complicated.Entropy weight method can determine the weight according to the degree of index variation，which can avoid the interference of human factors.However，it strictly follows the mathematical rules and often ignores the intentions of decision makers.Therefore,after considering the advantages and disadvantages of two methods，the game theory was used to optimizes and fuses the weights obtained by AHP and entropy weight method.Considering the subjective and objective factors comprehensively，the combination weights of each evaluation index for foundation pit safety were defined.The comprehensive determination degree of the evaluation object was obtained by combining the single factor determination degree of the index value belonging to each safety grade.Finally，the safety grade of foundation pit was determined according to the principle of maximum membership.This method was applied to engineering practice，and compared with traditional cloud model and extension method in the evaluation process.The results show that the model has good feasibility and validity in the study of foundation pit safety evaluation.The results obtained by this method are consistent with those obtained by extension method，which is in line with engineering practice.It overcomes the drawbacks of traditional cloud model when the index values are far from the expected values of both ends of the cloud.It can also provide a new idea for the study of foundation pit safety evaluation.

Key words: deep foundation pit, finite cloud model, cloud digital characteristics, game theory, combination weight, finite cloud generator, degree of certainty, safety level

CLC Number:

TU753

Rendong HUANG,Zanzan LIU,Zezheng YAN. Research on the Safety of Deep Foundation Pit Based on Finite Cloud Model[J].Gold Science and Technology, 2019, 27(1): 72-79.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig.1

Table 1

Classification criteria of safety evaluation index for foundation pit"

监测指标	安全性评价内容	安全性评价
监测指标	安全性评价内容	指标控制标准	Ⅰ级（危险）	Ⅱ级（注意）	Ⅲ级（安全）
墙体变形	墙体变形与开挖深度之比	$F 1 = 实测变位开挖深度$	$F 1 > 0.7 %$	$0.2 % ≤ F 1 ≤ 0.7 %$	$F 1 < 0.2 %$
墙体应力	墙体弯矩	$F 2 = 墙体容许弯矩实测弯矩$	$F 2 < 0.8$	$0.8 ≤ F 2 ≤ 1.0$	$F 2 > 1.0$
支撑轴力	容许轴力	$F 3 = 容许轴力实测轴力$	$F 3 < 0.8$	$0.8 ≤ F 3 ≤ 1.0$	$F 3 > 1.0$
基底隆起	隆起量与开挖深度之比	$F 4 = 实测隆起量开挖深度$	$F 4 > 0.2 %$	$0.04 % ≤ F 4 ≤ 0.2 %$	$F 4 < 0.04 %$
沉降值	沉降值与开挖深度之比	$F 5 = 实测沉降值开挖深度$	$F 5 > 0.2 %$	$0.04 % ≤ F 5 ≤ 0.2 %$	$F 5 < 0.04 %$

Table 1

Fig.2

Table 2

Table 4

Weight values of safety evaluation indicators of foundation pit"

评价指标	地下连续墙水平位移	地表沉降	基底隆起	支撑轴力	地下连续墙弯矩
AHP权值 $ω 1$	0.1762	0.2951	0.2623	0.1680	0.0984
熵权权值 $ω 2$	0.2243	0.2719	0.3057	0.0706	0.1275
博弈综合权值 $ω$	0.2229	0.2726	0.3045	0.0734	0.1266

Table 4

References 22

1	谢才军，林贤根 .基坑变形监测与VB编程［M］.浙江：浙江大学出版社，2012.
	Xie Caijun ， Lin Xiangen .Foundation Pit Deformation Monitoring and VB Programming［M］.Zhejiang：Zhejiang University Press，2012.
2	魏新江，邓志秋，魏纲，等 .可拓评价方法和熵值法相结合的基坑安全评价［J］.岩土工程学报，2008，30（10）：672-676.
	Wei Xinjiang ， Deng Zhiqiu ， Wei Gang ，et al .Safety evaluation of foundation pits by extension assessment method combined with entropy law［J］.Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering，2008，30（10）：672-676.
3	吴贤国，沈梅芳，覃亚伟，等 .基于变权和物元原理的地铁基坑施工安全风险评价［J］.武汉大学学报，2016，49（6）：879-885.
	Wu Xianguo ， Shen Meifang ， Qin Yawei ，et al .Risk evaluation of subway foundation pit based on variable-weight and matter-element theory［J］.Engineering Journal of Wuhan University，2016，49（6）：879-885.
4	傅志峰，罗晓辉，李杰，等 .基于安全预警分级的基坑安全模糊评价研究［J］.岩土力学，2011，32（12）：3694-3700.
	Fu Zhifeng ， Luo Xiaohui ， Li Jie ，et al .Study of fuzzy evaluation of foundation pit safety based on classification of safety early warning ［J］.Rock and Soil Mechanics，2011，32（12）：3694-3700.
5	胡强，刘宁，李锦辉 .基坑安全稳定评判的干扰能量法［J］.水利水电科技进展，2004，24（3）：27-30.
	Hu Qiang ， Liu Ning ， Li Jinhui .Interference energy method to the security and stability evaluation of foundation pit［J］.Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources，2004，24（3）：27-30.
6	王建仁，张福林 .基坑稳定的人工神经网络预测［J］.建筑技术开发，2001，28（2）：10-13.
	Wang Jianren ， Zhang Fulin .Evaluation the stability of deep foundation pit through artificial neural network［J］.Building Technique Development，2001，28（2）：10-13.
7	柳旻，宋彦臣 .基于尖点突变理论与灰色理论的基坑安全评价［J］.工程与建设，2011，25（1）：96-98.
	Liu Min ， Song Yanchen .Based on the point mutation theory and the gray theory foundation pit safety evaluation［J］.Engineering and Construction，2011，25（1）：96-98.
8	郑刚，朱合华，刘新荣，等 .基坑工程与地下工程安全及环境影响控制［J］.土木工程学报，2016，49（6）：1-24.
	Zheng Gang ， Zhu Hehua ， Liu Xinrong ，et al .Control of safety of deep excavations and underground engineering and its impact on surrounding environment［J］.China Civil Engineering Journal，2016，49（6）：1-24.
9	汪明武，朱其坤，赵奎元，等 .基于有限区间联系云的围岩稳定性评价模型［J］.岩土力学，2016，37（1）：140-144.
	Wang Mingwu ， Zhu Qikun ， Zhao Kuiyuan ，et al .A novel cloud model coupled with connection number based on finite intervals for evaluation of surrounding rock stability［J］.Rock and Soil Mechanics，2016，37（1）：140-144.
10	李建，汪明武，徐鹏，等 .基于云模型的围岩稳定性分类［J］.岩土工程学报，2014，36（1）：84-86.
	Li Jian ， Wang Mingwu ， Xu Peng ，et al .Classification of stability of surrounding rock using cloud model［J］.Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering，2014，36（1）：84-86.
11	周国强，王雪青，刘锐 .一种基于改进云模型的信用评价方法［J］.系统工程，2013，31（4）：60-66.
	Zhou Guoqiang ， Wang Xueqing ， Liu Rui .A credit evaluation method based on improved cloud model［J］.Systems Engineering，2013，31（4）：60-66.
12	杨光，刘敦文，褚夫蛟，等 .基于云模型的隧道塌方风险等级评价［J］.中国安全生产科学技术，2015，11（6）：95-101.
	Yang Guang ， Liu Dunwen ， Chu Fujiao ，et al .Evaluation on risk grade of tunnel collapse based on cloud model［J］.Journal of Safety Science and Technology，2015，11（6）：95-101.
13	赵国彦，梁伟章，洪昌寿 .采空区稳定性的改进云模型二维评判［J］.中国安全科学学报，2015，25（10）：102-108.
	Zhao Guoyan ， Liang Weizhang ， Hong Changshou .Improved cloud model for two dimensional stability evaluation of goaf［J］.China Safety Science Journal，2015，25（10）：102-108.
14	周科平，林允，胡建华 .基于熵权—正态云模型的岩爆烈度分级预测研究［J］.岩土力学，2016，37（1）：596-602.
	Zhou Keping ， Lin Yun ， Hu Jianhua .Grading prediction of rockburst intensity based on entropy and normal cloud model［J］.Rock and Soil Mcchanics，2016，37（1）：596-602.
15	上海岩土工程勘察设计研究院（集团）有限公司 .基坑工程施工监测规程：DG/TJ08-2001-2006［S］.上海：上海岩土工程勘察设计研究院（集团）有限公司，2006.
	SGIDI Engineering Consulting（Group）Co.，Ltd . Foundation pit engineering construction monitoring procedures：DG/TJ08-2001-2006.［S］.Shanghai：SGIDI Engineering Consulting（Group）Co.，Ltd.，2006.
16	徐中华，王卫东 .深基坑变形控制指标研究［J］.地下空间与工程学报，2010，6（3）：619-626.
	Xu Zhonghua ， Wang Weidong .Deformation control criteria of deep excavations［J］.Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering，2010，6（3）：619-626.
17	邓宗国 .抗剪强度指标对受锚基坑边坡稳定性的影响分析［J］.煤炭技术，2010，29（10）：123-125.
	Deng Zongguo .Analysis on stability of anchored pit foundation slope based on index of shear strength［J］.Coal Technology，2010，29（10）：123-125.
18	刘建航 .软土市政地下工程施工技术手册［M］.上海：上海市政工程管理局，1990.
	Liu Jianhang .Soft Soil Municipal Underground Engineering Construction Technical Manual［M］.Shanghai:Shanghai Municipal Engineering Administration,1990.
19	Singh R P ， Nachtnebel H P .Analytical hierarchy process（AHP） application for reinforcement of hydropower strategy in Nepal［J］.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews，2016，52（11）：43-58.
20	徐雅玺，王红岩 .基于AHP-熵权法的机场服务质量云模型评价［J］.价值工程，2016，2（4）：7-10.
	Xu Yaxi ， Wang Hongyan .Evaluation of airport service quality cloud model based on AHP-Entropy weight method［J］.Value Engineering，2016，2（4）：7-10.
21	路遥，徐林荣，陈舒阳，等 .基于博弈论组合赋权的泥石流危险度评价［J］.灾害学，2014，29（1）：194-200.
	Lu Yao ， Xu Linrong ， Chen Shuyang ，et al .Combined weight method based on game theory for debris flow hazard risk assessment［J］.Journal of Catastrophology，2014，29（1）：194-200.
22	杨太华，郑庆华 .复兴东路隧道工程浦东岸边段深基坑开挖同步检测设计及信息化施工效果分析［J］.交通科技与经济，2004，26（6）：6-9.
	Yang Taihua ， Zheng Qinghua .Analysis on on-time supervising design and information construction effect for deep-base pit-digging in tunnel engineering of Fuxing Dong Road［J］.Technology and Economy in Areas of Communications，2004，26（6）：6-9.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

序号	地下连续墙水平位移/mm	地表沉降/mm	基底隆起/mm	支撑轴力/kN	地下连续墙弯矩/（kN·m）
1	16.58	28.75	11.91	2 774.5	1 778.4
2	16.83	32.25	12.76	2 980.0	1 882.9
3	17.21	32.89	15.87	3 129.3	2 061.5
4	18.30	36.63	18.83	3 095.7	2 203.2
5	20.35	39.50	17.90	3 226.5	2 302.0
6	22.50	42.26	20.15	3 415.7	2 352.5
7	23.87	44.51	18.01	3 569.2	2 446.1
8	24.41	46.72	19.65	3 609.8	2 507.5

评价指标	确定度（有限/传统）			本文方法	传统云模型	可拓学^[2]方法
评价指标	危险（Ⅰ级）	注意（Ⅱ级）	安全（Ⅲ级）	本文方法	传统云模型	可拓学^[2]方法
地下连续墙水平位移	0.0004/0.0004	0.2849/0.2849	0.9874/0.9874	Ⅲ	Ⅲ	Ⅲ
地表沉降	0.6532/0.6532	0.3586/0.3586	0.0000/0.0000	Ⅰ	Ⅰ	Ⅰ
基地隆起	0.0212/0.0212	0.9152/0.9152	0.0001/0.0001	Ⅱ	Ⅱ	Ⅱ
支撑轴力	0.0000/0.0000	0.0000/0.0000	1.0000/0.0000	Ⅲ	-	Ⅲ
地下连续墙弯矩	0.0000/0.0000	0.0000/0.0000	1.0000/0.0000	Ⅲ	-	Ⅲ

[1]	Huan LI,Junhua MING,Xiaofeng SHI. Cleaner Production Assessments of Zinc Smelting Enterprise Based on Game Theory and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation [J]. Gold Science and Technology, 2018, 26(5): 635-646.
[2]	CHEN Yi，CHEN Jianhong. Mining Method Optimization Based on Game Theory and Relative Entropy TOPSIS [J]. Gold Science and Technology, 2017, 25(6): 75-82.
[3]	YUAN Xiao，WANG Liguan，LIU Xiaoming，PENG Ping’an. Mining Mode Optimization Based on Improved Unascertained Measurement Theory [J]. Gold Science and Technology, 2015, 23(5): 72-76.
[4]	HUO Chengsheng，WANG Chengdong，MENG Junhai，BAI Guolong. Monitoring Predication of Foundation Based on Grey Timing Model [J]. Gold Science and Technology, 2014, 22(5): 79-83.

Research on the Safety of Deep Foundation Pit Based on Finite Cloud Model

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 22

Related Articles 4

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0