高烈度地震区隧道软硬围岩交接段刚柔并济抗减震技术研究*

为提高高烈度地震区隧道抗震性能，以某铁路隧道为研究背景，分析3种抗减震措施下隧道不同监测点隧道拱顶沉降、边墙收敛、衬砌结构PGA及最小安全系数，通过对比分析得到最优抗减震措施。结果表明:相比于工况1，工况2隧道拱顶沉降减小10.54%~81.10%，边墙收敛减小13.92%~78.77%，衬砌结构PGA减小31.42%~72.02%，最小安全系数增加18.04%~66.13%；相比于工况1，工况3结构拱顶沉降减小3.04%~18.02%，边墙收敛减小4.70%~32.00%，PGA增加13.95%~27.48%，最小安全系数增加7.49%~30.99%；工况4即“减震层+SFRC衬砌”刚柔并济法，相比于工况1，隧道拱顶沉降减小18.46%~83.98%，结构边墙收敛减小17.54%~85.47%，PGA减小30.00%~69.98%，最小安全系数增加47.95%~83.56%；4种工况抗减震性能由高到低依次为:工况4＞工况2＞工况3＞工况1。研究结果可为隧道软硬围岩交接段抗震设防提供理论参考。     

分层开采工艺对地表沉降的影响研究

分层开采是厚煤开采的经典工艺,这种工艺对地表沉降的影响比较复杂。通过测试原岩物理力学参数,利用有限元软件flac3D对分层和一次采全高时地表沉降进行了数值模拟。结果表明,如果采高较小,砌体梁距煤层较近,且采完上分层后长时间停采,给顶板再生留足时间,分层开采较一次采全高对地表沉降影响要小。     

三峡库区水土流失特点及其环境危害防治措施探讨

水土流失是三峡库区主要环境问题之一,也是库区产生大量泥沙的根本因素,更是造成库区人民生活贫困的根源。本文就三峡库区水土流失的特点及其环境危害作了分析,提出了相应的防治措施,为水土流失防治工程提供科学依据。     

地下开采对地表的破坏与防治

介绍了由于地下开采而引起的沉陷对环境的破坏，包括连续下沉的移动盆地、非连续下沉的塌陷坑等。同时还介绍了对留设保护矿柱、充填采空区等预防措施。对塌陷区和裂缝的治理、复地造田等方法进行了探讨。     

三峡库区中低产土壤重金属含量及其与小麦吸收的关系

三峡库区中低产土壤的Hg,As,Cr,Pb,Cu五个重金属含量（除渝北区外），均在国家土壤环境质量标准内，属自然背景值一级标准。Cd和Zn高于全国土壤中的平均含量和背景值含量，属二级标准。土壤的重金属含量与土壤母质类型，pH值，阳离子交换量，有机质，无定形铁和物理性粘粒有关，同时存在一定的地域分布。重庆近郊的土壤所有重金属含量相对较高。土壤重金属的可给态或有效性含量极低，锌和铜不是过量，而是不足。小麦籽粒中As,Cr,Pb,Zn,Cu含量低于国家食品对重金属限量标准和小麦籽粒背景值标准，Hg,Cd含量高于国家规定标准。籽粒中的Cu,Zn含量是小麦茎叶中的2.0-2.2倍，而茎叶中的Hg,Pb,As,Cr,Cd含量明显高于籽粒。     

母岩的风化剥蚀速率与土壤允许流失量的关系 --以长江三峡坝区风化花岗岩土壤为例

土壤允许流失量的确定是一个非常复杂而又必须解决的问题，它关系到水土保持措施的布设和土壤的可持续利用。然而，发育在不同母质上的土壤，其土壤的最大允许流失量差异很大，确定这一值的依据也各不相同。在岩成土壤地区，母岩风化剥蚀速率的大小直接影响土壤的发育。是确定土壤允许流失量、分析人类加速水土流失的重要依据之一。选长江三峡黄陵背斜段风化花岗岩土壤为研究对象，根据剥蚀沉积相关原理，通过恢复古地理环境及时代，计算出新生代以来本区花岗岩的平均风化剥蚀速率为16．97mm／ka．最大剥蚀速率为49．56。又根据区内太平溪流域的泥沙资料，算出了当地现代的剥蚀速率，多年平均为297．7mm／ka，最小值为31．5mm／ka，而水利部颁布的当地土壤允许流失量为200t／km^2,a，折合为76．9mm／ka，二者相差近1．5—4．5倍。基于此。提出了确定土壤允许流失量必须参考母岩风化剥蚀速率的新观点。     

人类活动对土壤环境的影响及对策

人类不合理的开发行为给土壤环境带来了沉重的负面影响，主要表现为土壤沙化、土壤侵蚀、土壤盐渍化、土壤污染等。本文以此为出发点展开讨论，分析各种现象的成因，并提出相应对策。     

Sustainability: a Dissent

Abstract:  Broadly conceived and considered in its many usages, sustainability has grave defects as a planning goal, particularly when used by conservationists: it confuses means and ends; it is vague about what is being sustained and who or what is doing the sustaining; it is uninspiring; it is little more than Pinchot-era conservation (and thus ignores the many lessons learned since then); it need not be linked to land, to the land's functioning, or to any ecological science; it need not include a moral component; it is consistent with the view of humans as all-powerful manipulators of the planet; and, in general, it is such a malleable term that its popularity provides only a facade of consensus. When sustainability is defined broadly to include the full range of economic and social aspirations, it poses the particular risk that ecological and biodiversity concerns will be cast aside in favor of more pressing human wants. Given these many defects, the conservation movement should discard the term in favor of a more alluring goal, attentive to nature and its ecological functioning. A sound goal would incorporate and distill the considerable ecological and moral wisdom accumulated since Pinchot's day while giving conservationists the rhetorical tools needed to defend the land against competing pressures. In our view, conservation would be well served by an updated variant of "land health," Aldo Leopold's ecologically grounded goal from the 1940s. Land health as an independent understanding should set the essential terms of how we live and enjoy the earth, providing the framework within which we pursue our many social and economic aims.