Identifies key factors influencing shallow gas hazards in urban rail transit projects, suggesting improved safety measures.
Urban rail transit projects situated in Quaternary deposits are progressively influenced by ultra-shallow gas. During the investigation and construction phases, this gas may instigate gas outbursts, combustion, explosions, stratum disturbances, and secondary ground deformations. To transparently and applicably identify the most crucial disaster-inducing factors in engineering practice, this research constructs a hierarchical risk factor evaluation framework for shallow gas hazards during the investigation stage of rail transit engineering. Initially, candidate indicators were screened via a literature review of shallow gas hazard studies and metro engineering reports. Subsequently, by employing the AHP, four first-level indicators and fifteen second-level indicators were compared and weighted. The findings indicate that shallow gas pressure, methane content per ton of soil, and the occurrence form of shallow gas are the three most influential factors, with comprehensive weights of 0.2735, 0.2319, and 0.1113 respectively. A metro tunnel case in Guangdong Province was then utilized to illustrate how the ranked indicators can guide the verification of suspected zones, section-based hazard discrimination, and the planning of controlled gas release. In comparison with existing studies that concentrate on descriptive disaster phenomena or single-factor analyses, the contributions of this study are threefold. Firstly, it offers a structured indicator system specifically tailored to Quaternary shallow gas in rail transit engineering. Secondly, it makes the expert-based weighting process explicit. Thirdly, it links the ranking results to practical investigation and prevention decisions. This framework is intended as a preliminary engineering decision support tool rather than a substitute for detailed predictive modeling or large-sample statistical validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: