岩土力学 ›› 2023, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (8): 2381-2388.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2022.1374

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

带有两端防渗墙坝基的各向异性渗流解析解

余俊,李东凯,和振,张志中   

  1. 中南大学 土木工程学院,湖南 长沙 410075
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-05 接受日期:2022-11-13 出版日期:2023-08-21 发布日期:2023-08-21
  • 作者简介:余俊,男,1978年生,博士,副教授,主要从事隧道与地下工程方面的教学和研究工作。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No.52078496)

Analytical solution of anisotropic seepage in dam foundation with anti-seepage walls at both ends

YU Jun, LI Dong-kai, HE Zhen, ZHANG Zhi-zhong   

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China
  • Received:2022-09-05 Accepted:2022-11-13 Online:2023-08-21 Published:2023-08-21
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52078496).

摘要: 由于目前在坝基设计中通常需要设置两个或两个以上防渗墙,对带有两端防渗墙的坝基各向异性稳态渗流进行了解析研究,将土体分为4个规则的区域,采用坐标变换将各向异性土层转换成等效各向同性土层,利用分离变量法将4个区域内的水头分布表示为级数解的形式,结合区域间的连续条件得出带有两端防渗墙的坝基各向异性渗流场显式解析解。将解析解退化到各向同性情况下的渗流量、坝底扬压力与保角变换解析解和数值计算结果进行对比,各向异性情况下的水头值与有限元软件计算结果进行对比,结果均吻合较好,验证了解析解的正确性,且相比于保角变换解析解具有更高精度。最后对坝基渗流场进行了参数分析,发现土体各向异性对坝基渗流有着不可忽略的影响,其他条件相同的情况下,竖直渗透系数与水平渗透系数比值较大土体的渗流量和出口梯度会小于竖直渗透系数与水平渗透系数比值较小的土体,竖直渗透系数与水平渗透系数比值较大的土体的最大扬压力会大于竖直渗透系数与水平渗透系数比值较小的土体。

关键词: 坝基, 防渗墙, 二维稳态渗流, 渗透各向异性, 显式解析解, 扬压力, 渗流量, 出口梯度

Abstract: Since two or more anti-seepage walls are usually required in the present design of dam foundation, the anisotropic steady-state seepage of dam foundation with anti-seepage walls at both ends is analytically studied in this paper. The soil is divided into four regular regions, the anisotropic soil layer is converted into the equivalent isotropic soil layer by coordinate transformation, and the water head distribution in the four regions is expressed as a series solution by using the separation variable method. The explicit analytical solution of the anisotropic seepage field of the dam foundation with anti-seepage walls at both ends is obtained by combining the continuity conditions between regions. The analytical solution in this paper is reduced to the seepage flow under isotropic conditions, the uplift pressure at the dam bottom, the analytical solution and numerical results of conformal transformation are compared. The head value under anisotropic conditions is compared with the calculation results of the finite element software. The results are in good agreement, which verifies the correctness of the analytical solution in this paper, and the analytic solution has a higher accuracy than the analytical solution of conformal transformation. Finally, a parametric analysis of the seepage field at the base of the dam shows that soil anisotropy has a non-negligible effect on seepage at the base of the dam, and that, all other things being equal, the seepage volume and outlet hydraulic gradient of a soil with a larger ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability coefficient will be smaller than those of a soil with a smaller ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability coefficient; the maximum lift pressure of a soil with a larger ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability coefficient will be larger than that of a soil with a smaller ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability coefficient.

Key words: dam base, anti-seepage wall, two-dimensional steady seepage, permeability anisotropy, explicit analytical solution, uplift pressure, seepage flow, outlet hydraulic gradient

中图分类号: 

  • TV 223
[1] 邹德高, 屈永倩, 孔宪京, 陈楷, 刘京茂, 龚瑾, . 超深覆盖层上高沥青心墙坝防渗墙受力状态的精细化分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(6): 1826-1836.
[2] 甘磊, 刘玉, 张宗亮, 沈振中, 马洪影, . 岩体裂隙粗糙度表征及其对裂隙渗流特性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(6): 1585-1592.
[3] 黄娟, 和振, 余俊, 杨鑫歆. 渗透各向异性圆形围堰稳态渗流场解析解[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(4): 1035-1043.
[4] 徐杰, 周建, 罗凌晖, 余良贵, . 高岭-蒙脱混合黏土渗透各向异性模型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 469-476.
[5] 徐浩青, 周爱兆, 姜朋明, 刘顺青, 宋苗苗, 陈亮, . 不同砂−膨润土垂直防渗墙填筑土料的掺量研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 424-430.
[6] 陈兴长,陈 慧,游 勇,柳金峰,. 泥石流拦砂坝底扬压力分布及影响因素试验[J]. , 2018, 39(9): 3229-3236.
[7] 李 波,肖先波,徐唐锦,周 嵩,. 泥皮存在时防渗墙与复合土工膜联接型式模型试验[J]. , 2018, 39(5): 1761-1766.
[8] 李 伟,许 强,吴礼舟,李斯琦, . 平推式滑坡中底滑面承压水渗流形式对其稳定性的影响[J]. , 2018, 39(4): 1401-1410.
[9] 唐 然,许 强,吴 斌,范宣梅,. 平推式滑坡运动距离计算模型[J]. , 2018, 39(3): 1009-1019.
[10] 张文杰,楼晓红,高佳雯. 高塌落度防渗墙填料扩散系数快速测定的透析试验[J]. , 2018, 39(2): 523-528.
[11] 胡之锋,陈 健,邱岳峰,李健斌,周兴涛, . 挡墙水平变位诱发地表沉降的显式解析解[J]. , 2018, 39(11): 4165-4175.
[12] 倪卫达,单治钢,刘 晓,. 基于三维节理网络模拟的坝基岩体结构分类研究[J]. , 2018, 39(1): 287-296.
[13] 朱 伟 ,徐浩青 ,王升位 ,范惜辉,. CaCl2溶液对不同黏土基防渗墙渗透性的影响[J]. , 2016, 37(5): 1224-1230.
[14] 李美蓉 ,陈 媛 ,张 林 ,杨宝全 , . 复杂地质条件下多结构面对重力坝坝基稳定性的影响及处理[J]. , 2014, 35(S1): 328-333.
[15] 刘 杰,李建林,胡 静,蔡 健,赵宗勇. 劈裂砂岩有、无砂粒填充条件下的多因素对渗流量影响对比分析[J]. , 2014, 35(8): 2163-2170.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 姚仰平,侯 伟. 土的基本力学特性及其弹塑性描述[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2881 -2902 .
[2] 徐金明,羌培,张鹏飞. 粉质黏土图像的纹理特征分析[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2903 -2907 .
[3] 向天兵,冯夏庭,陈炳瑞,江 权,张传庆. 三向应力状态下单结构面岩石试样破坏机制与真三轴试验研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2908 -2916 .
[4] 徐速超,冯夏庭,陈炳瑞. 矽卡岩单轴循环加卸载试验及声发射特性研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2929 -2934 .
[5] 张力霆,齐清兰,魏静,霍倩,周国斌. 淤填黏土固结过程中孔隙比的变化规律[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2935 -2939 .
[6] 荣 冠,王思敬,王恩志,刘顺桂. 白鹤滩河谷演化模拟及P2β3玄武岩级别评估[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3013 -3019 .
[7] 张建国,张强勇,杨文东,张 欣. 大岗山水电站坝区初始地应力场反演分析[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3071 -3078 .
[8] 吴 亮,钟冬望,卢文波. 空气间隔装药爆炸冲击荷载作用下混凝土损伤分析[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3109 -3114 .
[9] 徐远杰,潘家军,刘祖德. 混凝土面板堆石坝的一种坝坡修整算法[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3139 -3144 .
[10] 赵成刚,蔡国庆. 非饱和土广义有效应力原理[J]. , 2009, 30(11): 3232 -3236 .