You are on page 1of 12

A study on crustal stability of a planned diversion tunnel in Shenzhen Municipality, China

C. X. Tan Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences (CAGS) R. J. Wang China Bureau of Geological Survey Y. Sun Urban and Engineering Site Stability Assessment Center ABSTRACT: The tectonic stability and the rock mass stability are two major aspects affecting the crustal stability of the planned diversion tunnel. For the former, b ased on the study of the Shenzhen fault spray activity, seismic activity and risk analysis, and present three-dimensional tectonic stress field numerical simulation, we discover that the Shenzhen fault belt is potentially active today and there is an attenuation of tectonism in Post Mesozoic times. By modeling, we estimated the present displacement rate of the Shenzhen fault spray where the tunnel is planned to pass and the angle enclosed between the maximum horizontal principal compressive stress and the tunnel axis to afford quantitative data for evaluating the crustal stability . For the latter, we examined the features of different rocks and evaluated the rock mass stability of the tunnel, especially at the four deep buried sectors. Based on the above, the crustal stability of the diversion tunnel was assessed using fuzzy mathematics to give data for its planning and construction. The results show that west sectors and north sectors are dominantly in stable or sub-stable states and middle sectors and east sectors are in relatively unstable states and some are in unstable states. 1. INTRODUCTION The Shenzhen municipality, a coastal city in Guangdong Province adjacent to Hong Kong, has seen a rapid development since 1985, with a population of more than 3.5 million. A tunnel, with a total length of about 100km, planned to be excavated to divert water from Dongjiang River in the east to Shenzhen Xili Reservoir in the west to supply water for the city. One 47.7km long segment of the tunnel, with a section of 4.24.2m2, is designed to pass through three major active faults of the Shenzhen fault spray west of Pingshan (Figure 1). So an assessment on crustal stability of the tunnel is required for its design and future construction. Crustal stability may be controlled by various factors in different research regions (Sun et al., 1998; Chen et al., 1995; Tan et al., 1997). The tectonic stability and the rock masses stability are two major aspects that affect the crustal stability of the planned diversion tunnel in this paper. Therefore, we discuss them respectively in the following. 2. TECTONIC STABILITY ANALYSIS 2.1 Activity of Shenzhen fault spray The Shenzhen fault spray is the southwestern continuation and least active part of the NE-trending Wuhua-Shenzhen fault zone (Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources of Guangdong Province, 1988; Yang et al, 1991; Hu et al., 1988). It has undergone a long period of tectonic activity and is shown by recent researches to be potentially active today (Yang et al, 1991; Sun et al. 1998,1999; Tan et al., 2000). It may be not superfluous to make a few remarks on the history of the faults since the Mesozoic before dealing with its present-day activity. It is known from field investigation and petrofabric study that, during the Yanshan period, the spray was strongly deformed. However, it shows a decrease in d ynamothermal metamorphism, fragmentation, finite strain and differential stress from Henggang northeastwards to southwestwards lengthwise and from the Henggang -Luohu fault outwards breadthwise (Figure 2) (Zhen et al, 1988). However, there was an attenuation of tectonism in Post Mesozoic times. Short term monitoring of micro-seismic activities, fault movements and in-situ stress measurements have been carried out to study the present tectonic activity of the faults in the 10km wide corridor area around the diversion tunnel (Yang et al, 1991; Sun et al. 1998,1999; Tan et al., 2000). The micro-earthquake monitoring shows a low magnitude and a low frequency of seismicity of the spray. However, foci of a few minor shocks detected were located at different depths well within the fault zone, having the same slope as the fault (Figure 3). This suggests the fault zone is still active today. A periodic short base -line survey across the Hengguang-Luohu fault at Huangbeiling to record its

Figure 1 Structural map of the corridor area of the diversion tunnel in Shenzhen . migmatitic granite; 7 .geological boundary; 8 . major faults and their numbers (Shenzhen fault spray):

1. Paleocene sandy gravel ; 2. Jurassic volcanic rock; 3. Carboniferous metamorphic schist, slate and phyl lite; 4. Devonian metamorphic schist ; 5. Sinian metamorphic schist, slate and phyllite ; 6. granite and

Qilingxia -Jiuweiling fault; Henggang -Luohu fault; Qingfengling fault; Poutaishan fault; Tian-

luokeng fault; Shijingling -Huangzhukeng fault; 9. the second -order fault; 10. compressive -shear fault; 11. measured and inferred fault; 12. Huangbeiling fault displacement measuring station; zonation boundary of VI and VII of seismic intensity; 20. mountain and its elev ation.

13. number of

the tunnel / elevation of diversion water level; 14. diversion canal or culvert; 15. diversion tunnel; 16. deep buried diversion tunnel; 17. Sanzhoutian spare diversion tunnel; 18. the corridor area of t he tunnel; 19.

movement, both vertical and horizontal, has been carried out for ten consecutive years and has yielded

no significant displacement values (e.g. a dextral strike slip of 0.29mm/a and a dip slip of 0.26mm/a).

This defines it is a moderately active fault, as listed in engineering codes.

Table 1 Angle enclosed between the maximum horizontal principal compressive stress (S Hmax ) and the tunnel axis Angle between Sector number of Direction of Direction of the the S Hmax direction the tunnel tunnel axis S Hmax Remarks with the tunnel axis Canal or culvert ZD1 ZD 2 N38 E N78W 64 N16W ZD2 ZD 3 N86W 70 ZD3 ZD 5 N8E N49 E 41 ZD5 ZD 6 N65 E N73W 42 Including the first deep buried ZD6 ZD 9 N37 E N56W 87 sector of the tunnel ZD9 ZD 10 N53 E N16W 69 ZD10 ZD10 1 N74 E N44 E 30 ZD10 1 ZD10 2 ZD10 2 ZD10 3 ZD10 3 ZD10 5 ZD10 5 ZD1 2 ZD12 ZD14 ZD14 ZD15 ZD15 ZD17 ZD17 ZD20 ZD20 ZD21 ZD21 ZD27 N78W N75 E N50 E N65 E N80W N36W N58 E N88W N50W N70W N38W N57W N53W N52W N81W N18 E N18 E N66W N61W N64W 40 48 77 63 1 54 40 22 11 6 Including the third deep buried sector of the tunnel Including the forth deep bu ried sector of the tunnel Canal or culvert Including the second deep buried sector of the tunnel

In-situ stress measurements by both overcoring and hydrofracturing were made in boreholes drilled into massive granite with few joints to a depth lower than the local base level to avoid or minimize the effect of topography (Sun et al., 1998). The results show stress values being on a par with those obtained in plain areas north of Shenzhen in South China (Chen, et al., 1998). The

maximum horizontal principal compressive stresses are dominantly NNW-and NW-trending, with a maximum horizontal shear stress mostly less than 1MPa which are considered too low to trigger a sudden movement of the faults (Figure 2) (Tan et al., 2000).

Figure 2 Rock stress -strain states of the Shenzhen fault spray


1. major faults; 2. compresso -shear faults; 3. amphibolite facies metamorphic rock; 4. greenschist facies metamorphic rock; 5. finite strain ellipsoid of rock in Yanshan period; 6. the maximum principal compressive direction in Yanshan period inferred from quartz fabric and calcite C -T; 711. paleo-differential stress (1 -3 ) respectively >190, 190170, 170150, 150130 and <13 0 (in units of MPa) in Yanshan period; 12. Present-day stress measurement that shows the maximum principal compressive stress dire ction (a rrows) and the maximum hori zontal principal compressive stress (numerator) and the minimum horizontal principal compressive stress (denominator).

Figure 3 Projection of the focal depth of micro-earthquake within Shenzhen fault spray. The solid circle showing the focus, thick line showing Shenzhen fault spray.

Figure 4 Contours showing the variation of the maximum shear stress in the corridor area of the tunnel (MPa). The dashed frame showing the corridor area of the tunnel.

2.2.1 Present tectonic stress status on the sloping plane of the diversion tunnel 2.2. Present three-dimensional stress-strain field simulation Because the sparseness of the representative stress measurements cannot meet the requirements of the tunnel crustal stability assessment, a finite element simulation of the present three-dimensional tectonic stress field was made (Tan et al., 2000). The present tectonic stress states along the sloping d iversion tunnel from east to west are discussed below. According to the simulation, t h e S Hmax trends dominantly NW-SE to NNW-SSE, locally, NE-SW or nearly N-S where there is a bending or intersection of the faults. The angle enclosed between the SHmax and the tunnel is listed in Table 1. It is known from practice that the tunnel is fairly safe when its axis is parallel to the SHmax (Chen et al., 1998; Sun et al., 1998, 1999; Tan et al., 2000). Therefore, the angle between the SHmax and the tunnel is of importance in considering the tunnel route selection.

Figure 5 Contours showing the variation of rock deformation specific energy in the corridor area of the tunnel (10 J/m3). The dashed frame showing the corridor area of the tunnel. 2.2.2 Present displacement rate of the major faults at the intersections with the tunnel There are generally five grade classifications of fault displacement rates. In terms of there activity in engineering codes: grade A-E with a rate of over 10, 1 0 1, 0.9 0.1, 0.09 0.01 and under 0.01mm/a respectively (Sun et al., 1995, 1999). The present rate of displacement of a fault can be measured directly. However, it may take a long time depending on the activity of a fault. It is impossible to measure the active velocity at every point of a fault because of its sectility (or heterogeneity) of activity. Therefore, using the measured data and the relative displacements given by present three-dimensional tectonic stress field modeling to calculate unknown values along a fault is one of the important ways to determine the present

Figure 6 Zonation of potential focal sources in Shenzhen and its adjacent region 1. Number of potential focal source and its maximum earthquake; 2. The planned tunnel active velocity of a fault. In this paper, by integrating the fault displacement rate monitored at Huangbeiling with the results of the present threedimensional stress field simulation, we have a dip slip rate of 0.100.90mm/a and a strike slip rate of 0.100.90mm/a where the tunnel is planned to run through the Shenzhen fault zone, which also ind icate the major faults with rates of displacements belonging to a moderate activity range (Table 2). 2.3. Seismic activity and risk analysis 2.3.1 Seismic activity The seismic network established in 1970 reflects that micro to weak earthquakes have been monitored at the Shenzhen fracture spray and surrounding areas (Yang et al., 1991). The forecasted seis-

mic intensity in the area has been determined as VI before 1990. Because of the development of Shenzhen municipality and of the related important engineering construction such as Daya Bay nuclear power station etc. in a bigger region (Hu et al., 1988), the intensity of some areas has been given as VII since October 1995. Figures 4 and 5 respectively show the variation of the maximum shear stress (max ) and the rock d eformation specific energy (Wd) calculated by the

three-dimensional stress-strain field simulation on the sloping plane with the corridor area nearly at the center. The former varies from 0.5 MPa to 4.0 MPa, and the latter from 20 J/m3 to340 J/m3 in the corridor area. The max and Wd are mainly generated by gravity, and there are no notable concentrations of stress and strain energy caused by tectonic activity. Therefore, a moderate to strong earthquake would not be likely to occur around the tunnel.

Table 2 Present displacement rate at the intersections of the major faults with the tunnel The intersections of the major faults with the tunnel
1

Horizontal shearing of the upper side relative to the lower wall of the major faults 2 (mm/a)

Vertical displacement of the upper side relat ive to the lower wall of the major faults 3 (mm/a)

Fault at the intersection 0.26 0.51 with the tunnel near ZD12 Fault at the intersection 0.78 0.27 with the tunnel near ZD2 Fault at the intersection 0.63 0.77 with the tunnel near ZD10-3 Fault at the intersection 0.54 0.26 with the tunnel near ZD5 Fault at the intersection 0.35 0.79 with the tunnel near ZD10-1 Fault at the intersection 0.39~ 0.80 0.12 ~ 0.47 with the tunnel from ZD5 to ZD6 Fault at the intersection 0.18 0.89 with the tunnel near ZD9 1 Referring to Figure1. 2 Positive, counterclockwise shearing; negative, clockwise shearing. tive, uplifting.

Positive, downcasting; nega-

Table 3 The maximum intensity caused by every potential focal source to the tunnel
Potential cal area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 foMinimum distance between the tunnel and the potential focal area (R/ km) 72 50 72 50 75 165 107 90 128 170 125 105 105 165 154 150 Maximum earthquake (M) 7 5 3/ 4 5 3/ 4 5 1/ 2 5 1/ 2 6 5 5 6 6 1/ 2 5 1/ 2 5 5 3/ 4 5 3/ 4 5 6 1/ 2 Seismic intensity (I) Long axis (Ia ) Short axis (Ib) 6.8 6.4 5.7 5.3 5.3 4.9 5.4 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.3 3.9 3.6 4.1 3.8 4.9 4.6 5.2 4.9 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.2 5.3 5.0

Table 4 Results of the calculated seismic risk exceeding probability


Acceleration (ai /cm/s 2) Annual occurrence frequency (ai /times/a) Exceeding probability (%) T=50a T=100a T=200a Correspondent seismic intensity

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

0.2784 0.2028 0.1443 0.1346 0.0550 0.0494 0.0287 0.0169 0.0169 0.0108 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0007

99.99 99.99 99.92 99.88 93.62 91.56 76.25 57.14 57.14 41.85 12.45 12.30 12.30 12.30 3.752

100 100 99.99 99.99 99.59 99.28 94.36 81.63 81.63 66.19 43.35 23.08 23.08 23.08 7.364

100 100 100 100 99.99 99.99 99.68 96.62 96.62 88.57 61.25 40.84 40.84 40.84 14.18

VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VII VII VII

2.3.2 Seismic risk analysis On the basis of regional seismicity analysis, 16 potential focal areas were zoned with the tunnel at the center of a circular region with a radius of about 200km (Figure 6). We use seismic intensity attenuation formula suitable for south China to calculate the maximum intensity caused by every potential focal source to the tunnel (Table 3)(Hu, 1988): Ia =4.600+1.212M-1.393Ln(R+15) =0.56 Ib=3.354+1.160M-1.153Ln(R+7) =0.51 Where Ia and Ib are respectively the long and short axes of earthquake intensity isoseismal line; M is the maximum earthquake in every potential focal area; R is the minimum distance between the potential focal area and the tunnel; is standard deviation. Then the seismic risk exceeding probability respectively in 50 years (T=50a), 100 years (T=100a) and 200 years (T=200a) was calculated in Table 4. An intensity more than VI and a peak acceleration of 6575cm/s 2 for a probability of exceedence of 7.364% in 100 years were recommended for the design and construction of the tunnel (Figures 7 and 8). Based on seismogeology and

lifeline importance, the nearly east-west line between ZD2 and ZD3 of the tunnel is the zonation boundary of seismic intensity. The region north of the boundary is rated as an intensity of VI and south as an intensity of VII (Figure 1).

Figure 7 The curve of acceleration - annual exceeding occurrence frequency

Figure 8 The curve of acceleration - exceeding probability of the tunnel in different service time

3. ROCK MASSES STABILITY ANALYSIS 3.3. Rock masses stability analysis at the four deep buried sectors of the tunnel Present stress states within the earth's crust can be measured directly as described before. It is difficult and / or impossible to make measurements at sp ecial landforms such as cliffs, gorges, and so on. The diversion tunnel has to find its way at a depth of about 200 250m in four sectors along the whole length. Because of the absence of in-situ stress measurements at the four sections, knowing the present three-dimensional stress states of the 4 sectors by the modeling is crucial to do rock masses stability evaluation, rock burst forecasts and engineering design. Table 6 gives the threedimensional stress states and shows that the rock masses are in stable states at the four deep buried sectors . 4. ASSESSMENT ON CRUSTAL STABILITY OF THE PLANNED DIVERSION TUNNEL USING FUZZY MATHEMATICS 4.1. Fuzzy mathematical principles of crustal stability evaluation

Figure 9 Contours showing the variation of the max imum horizontal principal compressive stress in the corridor area of the tunnel (MPa). The dashed frame showing t he corridor area of the tunnel.

Regional crustal stability, which is affected by crustal material composition, constitution, structure, various geological processes, interaction with engineering works, and so on, is a fuzzy concept. Therefore, it is suitable to use fuzzy mathematics to conduct regional crustal stability assessment in engineering geology. The key is to rightly select fuzzy evaluation factors and to assign suitable weight for each factor (Sun et al., 1998; Chen et al.,

1995; Tan et al., 1997).


r11 M M rn 1 r12 M M rn 2 r13 M M rn 3 r14 M M rn 4

stable; b 4 : unstable. Then, we get four subordinate degree values to the four grades of crustal stability. According to the principle of choosing the maximum one of the four subordinate degree values, the stability grade of every evaluation area can be determined . 4.2. Assessment on crustal stability of the tunnel On the basis of the above, 8 major evaluation factors were selected and corresponding weights were assigned (Table 7). The tunnel was divided into 26 sectors to evaluate crustal stability using fuzzy mathematics (Table 8). Table 8 shows that most sectors are in stable or sub-stable states, some sectors are in relatively unstable statea, and a few sectors are in unstable states at the intersections with NE-trending major faults and near the intersections of NE-trending major faults with NW-trending faults. The main factors that affect crustal stability of the tunnel are unstable rock masses within faults, the strong tensile stress states at the intersections of faults, and the present displacement rate of the faults.

R=

As crustal stability of the tunnel was rated as four grades, then crustal stability fuzzy evaluation set (V) is taken as : V=(stable, sub-stable, relatively unstable, unstable) In terms of the standards of crustal stability assessment, crustal stability fuzzy evaluation subset (R) caused by N factors is taken as : Among the factors, the role of every factor affecting crustal stability is different, so the weights fuzzy subset (W) formed by N factors is taken as : W=(w1, w 2, w3, ......, w n) So V can be calculated: V=WR=(b 1, b 2, b 3, b 4) where b 1 : stable; b 2 : sub-stable; b 3 : relatively unTable 5 Feature of rock masses
Rock type Rock Statistics Compressive strength (MPa) 16.5 12.2-19.0 8 17.3 15.5-20.7 4 13.1 9.4-15.4 7 1.9 1.6-2.4 3 16.2 <1.0 5.9 <3.0 6.4

Integrity of rock masses

Soft ening factor of rock masses 0.81

Stability of rock masses

Integrated blocky hard granite Magmatic rock Integrated blocky hard volcanic rock Thick-bedded hard metamorphic rock Metamorphic rock Sedimentary rock Decom posed rock Thin-bedded weak metamorphic rock Middle -thick bedded hard sandy gravel Strong decomposed rock Weak decomposed rock Cataclasite Breccia and mylonite

Mean value Variation Sample number Mean value Variation Sample number Mean value Variation Sample number Mean value Variation Sample number Mean value Mean value Mean value Mean value Mean value

0.85

Stable

0.76

0.80

Stable

0.75

0.81

Stable Relatively unstable Sub- stable Unstable Sub- stable Unstable Relatively unstable

0.43

0.65

0.55 0.085 0.50 0.17 0.52

0.71 0.60

Tectonite

Table 6 Three-dimensional simulated stress states and rock masses stability at the 4 deep buried sectors of the tunnel ZD6 ZD10 1 ZD18 ZD20 Four deep buried sectors of the tunnel ZD9 ZD19 ZD21 ZD102

Features of the four deep buried sectors

Rock type Maximum elevation of land form (m) Elevation at the bottom of the tunnel (m) Direction of deep buried Sector Uniaxial shear strength of rock masses (MPa) Uniaxial compressive strength of rock masses (MPa) Maxim um shear stress ( max ) (MPa) Maximum horizontals shear stress ( Hmax ) (MPa) Maximum horizontal principal compressive stress (S Hmax ) (Mpa)

Granite 300 48 N37 E 3.9 18.3

Granite 250 45 N78W 3.5 16.5

Granite and sand 250 30 N88W 3.6 17.2

Granite 270 29 N50W 3.8 17.8

2.05

1.32

2.49

2.02

Results of the threedimensional present stress field simulation

0.83 2.37 N56W 87 Stable

0.15 1.86 N38W 40 Stable

0.38 2.38 N66W 22 Stable

0.12 1.98 N61W 11 Stable

Azimuth of the S Hmax Angle between the S Hmax direction with the tunnel axis Rock masses stability analysis

Table 7 factors and their weights assigned in the stability evaluation of the tunnel using fuzzy mathematics No. Factor weight 1 Tectonic activity and its evolution feature 0.10 2 Maximum shear stress 0.05 3 Rock deformation specific energy 0.10 4 Safety of fault 0.10 5 Fault displacement velocity 0.10 6 Seismic activity and intensity 0.05 7 Feature of rock masses 0.40 8 Angle enclosed between the SHmax direction and the tunnel axis 0.10 Table 8 Assessment on crustal stability of every sector of the diversion tunnel using fuzzy mathematics Subordinate values to every stable grade calcuNumber of the sector Stable Number lated by fuzzy mathematics grade stable sub-stable sub-unstable Unstable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
ZD1ZD 2 Near ZD2 ZD2ZD 3 ZD3ZD 5 ZD5ZD 6 ZD6ZD 9 Near ZD9 ZD9ZD 10 Near ZD10 ZD10 ZD 10 -1 ZD10 -1ZD 10 -2 Near ZD10 -2 ZD10 -2ZD 10 -3 ZD10 -3ZD 10 -4

0.400 0.400 0.150 0.950 0.350 0.850 0.150 0.125 0.250 0.425 0.950 0.330 0.250 0.950

0.100 0.150 0.225 0.025 0.025 0.125 0.225 0.450 0.175 0.430 0.025 0.245 0.025 0.025

0.500 0.450 0.125 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.125 0.425 0.175 0.145 0.025 0.425 0.225 0.025

0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.600 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000

3* 3 4* 1* 4 1 4 2* 4 2 1 3 4 1

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Near ZD10 -4 ZD10 -4ZD 10 -5 Near ZD10 -5 15km east ZD10-5 ZD12 15 km east ZD12 Near ZD12 ZD12 ZD 16 ZD16 ZD 17

0.250 0.350 0.850 0.150 0.450 0.450 0.145 0.350

0.125 0.175 0.125 0.275 0.425 0.025 0.430 0.225

0.125 0.475 0.025 0.175 0.125 0.025 0.425 0.425 0.425 0.025 0.075 0.025

0.500 0.000 0.000 0.400 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

4 3 1 4 1 4 2 3 2 1 1 1

23 ZD17 ZD 19 0.145 0.430 24 Near ZD19 0.850 0.125 25 ZD19 ZD 25 0.850 0.075 26 ZD25 ZD 27 0.850 0.125 1*: stable; 2*: sub-stable; 3*: relatively unstable; 4*: unstable.

4.3. A contrast on the stability between the Qingfengling route and the Sanzhoutian spare route An unfavorable engineering geological setting exists from ZD5 to ZD8 due to the designed tunnel alignment nearly parallelling or obliquely cross ing Poutianshan major fault. Therefore, the Sanzhoutian candidate route was given as an alternative. The Sanzhoutian spare route The Sanzhoutian spare route escapes the Poutianshan major fault, but it has three major problems as follows: The spare route increases the length of the d iversion tunnel by about 350m; The spare route passes through the maximum shear stress and rock deformation specific energy in the corridor area (Figures 4 and 5); The spare route, which is about 200m below the Sanzhoutian reservoir, may have additional risk of water inflows due to the seepage and karst characteristics . 4.4 The Qingfengling designed route The Qingfengling designed route is planned to run across metamorphic schist within and/or along the Poutaishan major fault from ZD5 to ZD8 with a less favorable engineering setting for construction. Ho wever, based on field investigations, there is a rarely fractured schist zone with a width more than 100m between Qingfengling and Poutaishan major faults, and it is very possible to select a proper route for the tunnel in the unstable or relatively unstable rock masses. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions According to evaluations of crustal stability along the tunnel, west sectors (ZD27ZD19) and north sectors (ZD5 ZD1) are dominantly in stable or sub-stable states, and middle sectors ZD19

ZD10-3and east sectors ZD10-3ZD5are in relatively unstable states and some in unstable states. The unstable sectors of the tunnel are mainly caused by the constitution and structure of rock masses, and partly affected by the strong tensile stress states at the intersections of faults and the present displacement rate of faults. 5.2. Suggestions The tunnel should run away from the intersections of the NE-trending and NW-trending faults to avoid the unstable rock masses. For the Qingfengling planned route of the tunnel, the schist with less developed fractures between Qingfengling and Poutaishan major faults should be selected as the medium through which to construct the tunnel and to escape from the unfavorable engineering geological settings within and/or along Poutaishan major fault from ZD5 to ZD8. However, for the Sanzhoutian spare route of the tunnel, with the Sanzhoutian reservoir above it, attention should be paid to engineering geology investigation to avoid the inrush of water resulted from the seepage and karst. 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to acknowledge Professor Qingxuan Chen, an Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Professor Yue Zhao, the leader of Institute of Geomechanics, for their constructive comments. This study is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 49802017). 7 REFERENCES Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources of Guangdong Province, Regional geology of

Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China (in Chinese). Geological Publishing House, 1988. Chen Q. X. et al., Assessment of regional crustal stability and its application to eng ineering geology in China. Episodes, 1995, 18(1&2), 69-72. Chen, Q. X. et al., Rock mechanics and analysis of tectonic stress field (in Chinese). Geological Publishing House, 1998 Hu, H. T. et al., An analysis and assessment on regional crustal stability to the site selection of the Daya Bay nuclear power station in Guangdong Province (in Chinese). Archive Publishing House, 1988. Hu, L.X., Earthquake engineering (in Chinese). Publishing House of Seismology, 1988. Sun Y. & Tan, C. X. An analysis of presentday regional tectonic stress field and crustal movement trend in China (in Chinese with English abstract). Journal of Geomechanics, 1995, 1 (3), 1-12. Sun, Y et al., An analysis of the activity of . the planned diversion tunnel from east to west in Shenzhen municipality (in Chinese with English abstract), Journal of Geomechanics, 1999, 6(1), 59-68. Sun, Y. et al., Quantitative assessment of regional crustal stability (in Chinese). Geological Publishing House, 1999. Tan, C. et al., Present activity of the Shenzhen fault zone and its imp act on the safety of a planned diversion tunnel in Shenzhen, China: Engineering Geology , 2000, 57(1&2), p73-80. Tan C. X. et al., Assessment and zonation of regional crustal stability in and around the dam region of the Three Gorges Project on the Yangtze River. Environmental Geology, 1997, 32(4), 285-295. Yang, C. Q. et al., An assessment of the crustal stability of Shenzhen municipality (in Chinese). Geological Publishing House, 1991. Zhen, Y D. & Chang, Z. Z. Finite strain . measurement and ductile shear zones (in Chinese). Geological Publishing House, 1989.