二维与三维边坡稳定性分析结果的比较与分析

›› 2012, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (S2): 150-154.

二维与三维边坡稳定性分析结果的比较与分析

卢坤林，朱大勇，杨扬

合肥工业大学土木与水利工程学院，合肥 230009

收稿日期:2012-07-22 出版日期:2012-11-22 发布日期:2012-12-11
作者简介:卢坤林，男，1980年生，博士研究生，讲师，从事岩土稳定理论与工程方面工作
基金资助:
国家自然基金资助（No. 51078123，No. 51179043）

Comparison and analysis of 2D and 3D slope stability analysis results

LU Kun-lin, ZHU Da-yong, YANG Yang

School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China

Received:2012-07-22 Online:2012-11-22 Published:2012-12-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 二维与三维边坡稳定性分析得到的安全系数存在着差异，讨论这种差异与滑体几何尺寸及土体强度参数间的变化规律及其形成机制，可为合理地评价边坡稳定性分析提供理论依据。针对均质三维边坡，利用基于滑面正应力修正模式的极限平衡法分析程序，定性地讨论滑体形态、长高比、坡比、土体强度参数等指标对二维与三维安全系数计算结果差异(以F3/F2表示)的影响，总结F3/F2与影响指标间的变化规律，分析变化规律形成的内在机制。从工程应用的角度，给出需要考虑该差异影响的分界标准。研究表明，F3/F2随着长高比L/H、内摩擦角?及坡比m的增大逐渐减小，随着黏聚力c的增大逐渐增大；对于满足下列条件之一的边坡，宜采用三维安全系数来评价其稳定性，(1) L/H ≤ 5的滑坡体；(2) 5< L/H ≤ 10且 c > 25 kPa(或? < 15°，或m < 1.0) 的滑坡体。研究成果可为合理评价边坡稳定性分析方法提供参考。

关键词: 边坡, 极限平衡, 安全系数, 二维, 三维

Abstract: Relationships between the difference of 2D and 3D safety factor and parameters of landslide geometry (including ratio of slope, 3D sliding mass shape and length of landslide) and soil strength (including cohesion and internal friction angle) are studied. 2D and 3D safety factor of the different parameters homogeneous slopes are calculated based on the slope stability analysis program of the limit equilibrium method by modifying normal stress over slip surface. The ratio of 3D to 2D safety factor (denoted by F3/F2) is used to analyze the difference of 2D and 3D safety factor. Then, variation rule and mechanism of F3/F2 by changing parameters of landslide geometry and soil strength are also discussed. Finally, the standard of ignoring the difference of 2D and 3D safety factor are proposed from the view point of engineering practice. Results show that: F3/F2 decreases while ratio of length to height, internal friction angle and ratio of slope increases, and increases when cohesion increases; 3D safety factor is suggested to estimate the slope stability when (1) ratio of length to height is lower than or equivalent to 5; (2) ratio of length to height is more than 5 and lower than or equivalent to 10 while cohesion more than 25 kPa or internal friction angle lower than 15° or ratio of slope lower than 1. The conclusion can be referring to correct evaluation of slope stability.

Key words: slope, limit equilibrium, safety factor, 2D, 3D

中图分类号:

TU473

卢坤林，朱大勇，杨扬. 二维与三维边坡稳定性分析结果的比较与分析[J]. , 2012, 33(S2): 150-154.

LU Kun-lin, ZHU Da-yong, YANG Yang. Comparison and analysis of 2D and 3D slope stability analysis results[J]. , 2012, 33(S2): 150-154.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	苏永华, 李诚诚. 强降雨下基于Green-Ampt模型的边坡稳定性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 389-398.
[2]	程涛, 晏克勤, 胡仁杰, 郑俊杰, 张欢, 陈合龙, 江志杰, 刘强, . 非饱和土拟二维平面应变固结问题的解析计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 453-460.
[3]	蒙宇涵, 张必胜, 陈征, 梅国雄, . 线性加载下含砂垫层地基固结分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 461-468.
[4]	朱彦鹏, 陶钧, 杨校辉, 彭俊国, 吴强, . 框架预应力锚托板结构加固高填方边坡设计与数值分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 612-623.
[5]	柯锦福, 王水林, 郑宏, 杨永涛, . 基于修正对称和反对称分解的三维数值流形元法应用推广[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 695-706.
[6]	李剑, 陈善雄, 余飞, 姜领发, 戴张俊. 预应力锚索加固高陡边坡机制探讨[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 707-713.
[7]	张志韬, 王海军, 汤雷, 赵初, 李汉章, 苏正洋, . 基于3D-ILC含偏心内裂纹半圆弯拉断裂特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 111-122.
[8]	于丽, 吕城, 段儒禹, 王明年, . 考虑孔隙水压力及非线性Mohr-Coulomb破坏准则下浅埋土质隧道三维塌落机制的上限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 194-204.
[9]	杜子纯, 刘镇, 明伟华, 王向东, 周翠英, . 城市级三维地质建模的统一地层序列方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 259-266.
[10]	闫国强, 殷跃平, 黄波林, 张枝华, 代贞伟, . 三峡库区巫山金鸡岭滑坡成因机制与变形特征[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 329-340.
[11]	刘顺青, 黄献文, 周爱兆, 蔡国军, 姜朋明, . 基于随机块石模型的土石混合边坡稳定性分析方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 350-358.
[12]	刘红岩. 宏细观缺陷对岩体力学特性及边坡稳定影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 431-439.
[13]	王伟, 陈国庆, 郑水全, 张广泽, 王栋, . 考虑张拉-剪切渐进破坏的边坡矢量和法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 468-476.
[14]	姜谙男, 张权, 吴洪涛, 段龙梅, 焦明伟, 白涛, . 基于改进局部安全度的爆破作用边坡稳定性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 511-518.
[15]	吴锦亮, 何吉, . 岩质边坡动态开挖模拟的复合单元模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 535-540.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed