|
|
|
| Comparison between TGP 2D and 3D geological prediction results |
| LIN Chao-Qun, LIU Cheng-Yu, LIN Yi-Peng, LIU Han-Qing |
| School of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Based on advanced theory of TGP (Tunnel Geological Prediction) and actual engineering data, the authors applied information logic method to analyzing TGP 2D and 3D geological prediction results and mainly compared the similarities and differences in the aspects of the geological structure position, scale, surrounding rock classification and attutude. The results show that, if the surrounding rocks in front of the tunnel have no obvious difference in lithology, 2D and 3D geological prediction results are essentially the same. When the geological structures and tunnel are obliquely crossed, 2D and 3D are similar in the prediction results of tectonic attitude; however, 2D is advantageous in the surrounding rock classification prediction, and 3D is advantageous in the size and location prediction. Where the geological structure does not intersect with the tunnel side wall which is near the hole line excitation, 2D and 3D geological prediction results are substantially different, and 3D geological prediction results are better than 2D prediction results.
|
|
Received: 02 June 2014
Published: 10 December 2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
CHEN Xiu-Juan, LIU Zhi-Di, LIU Yu-Xi, CHAI Hui-Qiang, WANG Yong. Research into the pore structure of tight reservoirs:A review[J]. Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, 2022, 46(1): 22-31. |
| [2] |
SHI Lei, GUAN Yao, FENG Jin, GAO Hui, QIU Xin-Wei, QUE Xiao-Ming. Multi-level division method of flow units for accurate permeability assessment of glutenite reservoirs:A case study of reservoir W53 of Paleogene Wenchang Formation in Lufeng oilfield[J]. Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, 2022, 46(1): 78-86. |
|
|
|
|
