<th id="5nh9l"></th><strike id="5nh9l"></strike><th id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><th id="5nh9l"></th><strike id="5nh9l"></strike>
<progress id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><th id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
<th id="5nh9l"></th> <strike id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><span id="5nh9l"></span>
<progress id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><span id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><span id="5nh9l"></span><strike id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><strike id="5nh9l"></strike>
<span id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
<span id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
<span id="5nh9l"></span><span id="5nh9l"><video id="5nh9l"></video></span>
<th id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><th id="5nh9l"></th>
<progress id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">

鄂爾多斯高原臺地邊緣地帶地應力隨鉆測量與分布特征

In-situ stress measurement while drilling and stress characteristics at the margin of Ordos Plateau

  • 摘要: 傳統水壓致裂法和新的熱脹致裂法等測量地應力均屬于先成孔后測量,容易發生鉆孔后變形、自然開裂和應力釋放,很難從根本上保證裂紋是試驗時發生還是鉆孔后已自然發生,難以保證測量結果的準確性. 為了克服常規水壓致裂法地應力測量過程中鉆孔完整性和致裂過程真實性難以確定的問題,采用地應力光聲隨鉆測試系統對鄂爾多斯高原西南邊緣地帶典型區域地應力進行了水壓致裂法測試,揭示了高原臺地邊緣地區的應力特點,獲得了地應力隨深度的變化規律,并與華北平原典型區域地應力測試統計結果進行了比較. 研究表明,鄂爾多斯高原西南邊緣臺地地帶的地應力處于中國大陸淺層地殼地應力統計結果的低段區間,高原邊緣地帶的地應力隨深度呈線性增長,最小水平主應力隨深度的增長速度高于最大水平主應力的增長速度;最大最小水平主應力低于華北平原區;受區域構造及高原臺地地形等影響,鄂爾多斯臺地邊緣的地應力方向相較于華北平原區,向東發生了偏轉;最大最小水平主應力與垂直應力之比所反映的側壓系數低于華北平原區,但兩個水平最大最小主應力的差異性高于華北平原區. 這說明,盡管高原邊緣地帶地應力總體水平低于華北平原區,但較大的水平應力差異性容易使地下空間發生剪切破壞,將不利于地下工程的穩定性. 由此可見,在臺地邊緣區域進行地下工程設計和建設時,應重點關注井巷工程的方向布置和低水平應力高應力差值帶來的負面影響.

     

    Abstract: The traditional hydraulic fracturing and new thermal-expansion cracking methods employed for measuring in-situ stress require a subsequent lagging test after borehole drilling. This post-drilling often leads to deformation, cracking, and stress release. Additionally, determining whether a crack occurs during the test or naturally after drilling is challenging, posing difficulties in ensuring testing accuracy. To address these challenges for determining the borehole wall integrity of the test point and authenticity of the fracture process in the in-situ stress analysis using conventional hydraulic fracturing methods, we used an optical sonic measurement while drilling system to conduct hydrofracturing measurements of rock in-situ stress in the southwest margin of the Ordos Plateau. The stress characteristics at the margin of the plateau platform were revealed, and the variation law for estimating in-situ stress with depth was obtained. The statistical results were then compared with those obtained for the in-situ stress in a typical area of the North China Plain. The results show that the in-situ stress obtained for the southwest platform margin of the Ordos Plateau is lower than the statistical results of the crustal stress obtained for the shallow crust of mainland China. The in-situ stresses increase linearly with depth, and the growth rate of the minimum horizontal principal stress is higher than that of the maximum horizontal principal stress. The maximum and minimum horizontal principal stresses are lower than those observed in the North China Plain. Due to the influence of the regional structure and plateau platform of the Ordos, the direction of geostress is deflected to the east compared with the North China Plain. The lateral pressure coefficients reflected by the ratio of the maximum and minimum horizontal principal stress to vertical stress are lower than those in the North China Plain. However, the difference between the maximum and minimum horizontal principal stresses is higher than that in the North China Plain. This indicates that although the overall level of in-situ stress in the plateau edge zone is lower than that in the North China Plain, the larger difference between the maximum and minimum horizontal principal stresses is conducive to causing shear failure in underground space structures, which is unfavorable for the stability of underground engineering. This shows that when designing underground projects in the plateau platform area, more attention should be paid to the direction arrangement of the shaft and roadway engineering, as well as the negative effects of low horizontal stress and high-stress difference.

     

/

返回文章
返回
<th id="5nh9l"></th><strike id="5nh9l"></strike><th id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><th id="5nh9l"></th><strike id="5nh9l"></strike>
<progress id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><th id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
<th id="5nh9l"></th> <strike id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><span id="5nh9l"></span>
<progress id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><span id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><span id="5nh9l"></span><strike id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><strike id="5nh9l"></strike>
<span id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
<span id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
<span id="5nh9l"></span><span id="5nh9l"><video id="5nh9l"></video></span>
<th id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l"><th id="5nh9l"></th>
<progress id="5nh9l"><noframes id="5nh9l">
259luxu-164