软土路基大应变黏弹塑性正/反分析沉降预测对比

›› 2010, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (8): 2630-2636.

软土路基大应变黏弹塑性正/反分析沉降预测对比

魏丽敏，何群，王永和

中南大学土木建筑学院, 长沙410075

收稿日期:2008-11-11 出版日期:2010-08-10 发布日期:2010-08-30
作者简介:魏丽敏，女，1965年生，博士，教授，博士生导师，主要从事岩土工程科研与教学工作。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（No. 50678175）；铁道部科技研究开发计划（No. 2005K002-B-6）。

Comparison of settlement prediction from back analysis with forward analysis for embankment on soft soil foundation based on large strain and visco-elastoplastic model

WEI Li-min, HE Qun, WANG Yong-he

School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075,China

Received:2008-11-11 Online:2010-08-10 Published:2010-08-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

结合软土变形的大位移、大应变、渗透固结及依时性特点，采用黏弹塑（西原）模型模拟土骨架，建立了分析软土地基的大应变黏弹塑性有限元列式和迭代求解算法，并采用动态“生”“死”单元模拟路堤的施工过程，建立了软土路基双重非线性渗透固结分析模型，研制了相应的大型实用化有限元分析程序LSVEP。分别采用反分析所得参数和室内试验确定参数对路基地表沉降和地基深层沉降进行预测，并将所得结果和现场实测结果进行对比分析，结果表明：所建立的大应变黏弹塑性有限元分析方法正确；计算参数的准确选择对沉降预测精度影响很大；用反分析所得参数进行沉降预测的精度远高于正分析预测，是提高沉降预测精度的有效途径，可供类似工程借鉴。

关键词: 沉降预测, 大应变, 黏弹塑性, 渗透固结, 反分析

Abstract:

Taking the deformation characteristics of large displacement, large strain, permeability-consolidation and time-dependence of soft soil into account, the finite element method (FEM) formulas and iterative solution strategy were built, in which the soil skeleton was simulated by visco-elastic-plastic model. The embankment construction process was simulated by dynamic “birth” and “dead” elements and the double nonlinear permeability-consolidation analysis method was established. Then the FEM program LSVEP was developed. The foundation settlement was predicted by using parameters from laboratory tests and back analysis separately; and the results were compared with monitored data. The results indicate that: the large strain visco-elastoplastic FEM built in this paper is reasonable and the precision of settlement prediction was affected markedly by the choosing correctly of calculating parameters. The settlement predicted by parameters from back analysis is much more close to those monitored settlements, it is an effective method to improve the precision of settlement prediction and can be referenced by similar projects.

Key words: settlement prediction, large strain, visco-elastoplastic model, permeability-consolidation, back analysis

中图分类号:

TU 447

魏丽敏，何群，王永和. 软土路基大应变黏弹塑性正/反分析沉降预测对比[J]. , 2010, 31(8): 2630-2636.

WEI Li-min, HE Qun, WANG Yong-he. Comparison of settlement prediction from back analysis with forward analysis for embankment on soft soil foundation based on large strain and visco-elastoplastic model[J]. , 2010, 31(8): 2630-2636.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	杨德欢, 颜荣涛, 韦昌富, 潘雪瑛, 张芹, . 饱和黏土平均粒间应力的确定方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2075-2084.
[2]	龚文惠, 赵旭东, 邱金伟, 李逸, 杨晗. 饱和软土大应变自重固结非线性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2099-2107.
[3]	储昭飞, 刘保国, 任大瑞, 宋宇, 马强, . 软岩流变相似材料的研制及物理模型试验应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2172-2182.
[4]	钟国强, 王浩, 李莉, 王成汤, 谢壁婷, . 基于SFLA-GRNN模型的基坑地表最大沉降预测[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(2): 792-798.
[5]	李连祥, 刘嘉典, 李克金, 黄亨利, 季相凯, . 济南典型地层HSS参数选取及适用性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 4021-4029.
[6]	杨鹏, 蒲诃夫, 宋丁豹. 竖井地基的大应变固结分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 4049-4056.
[7]	莫品强, 高新慰, 黄子丰, 马丹阳, . 下穿隧道开挖引起的挤土桩沉降控制分析方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 3823-3832.
[8]	孙明社，马涛，申志军，吴旭，王梦恕，. 复合式衬砌结构中衬砌分担围岩压力比例的研究[J]. , 2018, 39(S1): 437-445.
[9]	王少杰，吕爱钟，张晓莉. 横观各向同性岩体中马蹄形隧洞的位移反分析方法[J]. , 2018, 39(S1): 495-504.
[10]	李建朋，聂庆科，刘泉声，于俊超,. 基于权重反分析的岩溶地面塌陷危险性评价方法研究[J]. , 2018, 39(4): 1395-1400.
[11]	王洪波，张庆松，刘人太，李术才，张乐文，郑卓，张连震. 基于压水试验的地层渗流场反分析[J]. , 2018, 39(3): 985-992.
[12]	田茂霖，肖洪天，闫强刚,. Hoek-Brown准则岩体力学参数非线性位移反分析[J]. , 2017, 38(S1): 343-350.
[13]	袁艳玲，郭琴琴，周正军，吴震宇，陈建康，姚福海,. 考虑参数相关的高心墙堆石坝材料参数反分析[J]. , 2017, 38(S1): 463-470.
[14]	曹文贵，印鹏, 贺敏，刘涛. 基于数据新旧程度和预测取值区间调整的沉降组合预测方法[J]. , 2017, 38(2): 534-540.
[15]	郑亚飞，张璐璐，张洁，郑建国，于永堂,. 基于时变监测数据的降雨滑坡多目标随机反分析[J]. , 2017, 38(11): 3371-3377.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed