›› 2012, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (11): 3472-3478.

• 数值分析 • 上一篇    下一篇

有限元强度折减法计算边坡稳定的对比分析

程灿宇1,罗富荣2,戚承志1,王 霆2   

  1. 1. 北京建筑工程学院 工程结构与新材料北京市高校工程研究中心,北京 100044;2. 北京市轨道交通管理公司,北京 100037
  • 收稿日期:2012-07-09 出版日期:2012-11-12 发布日期:2012-11-14
  • 作者简介:程灿宇,男,1988年生,硕士研究生,主要从事地铁与地下空间开发、岩土力学等方面的研究工作
  • 基金资助:

    北京市教委科研计划项目及北京市自然基金资助项目(No. KZ200810016007);国家自然基金资助项目(No. 51174012,No. 50825403);国家重点基础研究发展计划(973)项目(No. 2010CB732003);非线性动立系统建模与分析团队(No. PHR201107123)

Comparative analysis of slope stability by strength reduction method

CHENG Can-yu1,LUO Fu-rong2,QI Cheng-zhi1,WANG Ting2   

  1. 1. Beijing Higher Institution Engineering Research Center of Engineering Structures and New Materials, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China; 2. Beijing Rail Transit Management Company, Beijing 100037, China
  • Received:2012-07-09 Online:2012-11-12 Published:2012-11-14

摘要: 采用目前边坡稳定性分析比较流行的强度折减法,对比研究了MIDAS/GTS、FLAC、ANSYS配合Drucker-Prager(简称D-P)屈服准则和Mohr-Coulomb(简称M-C)屈服准则时软黏土、硬黏土、弱膨胀土3种工况下计算结果的偏差。软黏土工况下D-P准则和M-C准则计算结果的偏差相对较小,当边坡土体为硬黏土时,采用D-P准则与采用M-C准则计算结果的偏差明显增加。3种软件2种屈服准则下的计算结果都反映出,硬黏土的滑动面比弱膨胀土和软黏土的滑动面浅,而且同等情况下MIDAS计算得到的滑动面比ANSYS计算得到的滑动面浅;坡度较小时FLAC(M-C)计算的安全系数比MIDAS(M-C)计算得到的大,坡度较大时则相反;坡度较小时计算过程中先出现塑性区贯通,后出现计算不收敛;坡度较大时计算过程中先出现计算不收敛,后出现塑性区贯通。坡度较小时计算不收敛时的折减系数与出现塑性区贯通时的折减系数差别较大;坡度较大时这一差别较小,甚至计算到不收敛时塑性区仍未贯通,在用MIDAS计算时这一现象反映得更加明显。

关键词: 边坡, 强度折减法, 强度准则, 安全系数

Abstract: The strength reduction method, which is popular at present in the slope stability analysis, is used to analyze the relative error of calculation results by using software MIDAS/GTS, FLAC, ANSYS with D-P and M-C yield criteria in three cases (soft clay, hard clay, weak expansive soil). In the case of soft clay the relative error of calculation results by using D-P criterion and M-C criterion is relatively small. For hard clay slope, the relative error of calculation results by using D-P criterion and M-C criterion increases significantly. The calculation results by using three kinds of software with two yield criteria all indicate that sliding surface in hard clay is shallower than the sliding surface in weak expansive soil and soft clay. Under the same circumstances, sliding surface determined by MIDAS is shallower than the result by ANSYS. When the slope is small the safety factor of the calculation by MIDAS is smaller than that by FLAC (M-C); when slope is large the result is opposite. When slope is small the calculation convergence is realized after the breakthrough of plastic zone, but for large slope calculation divergence occurs before the breakthrough of plastic zone. In the case of small slope the difference between reduction factors upon appearance of calculation divergence and upon breakthrough of plastic zone is significant. But the difference between reduction factors is relative small in the case of large slope, even breakthrough of plastic zone does not occur upon the calculation divergence, which is more remarkable when using MIDAS software.

Key words: slope, method of strength reduction, strength criterion, safety factors

中图分类号: 

  • O 245
[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] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 郑坤, 孟庆山, 汪稔, 余克服, . 珊瑚骨架灰岩三轴压缩声发射特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 205-213.
[5] 尹光志, 鲁俊, 张东明, 李铭辉, 邓博知, 刘 超, . 真三轴应力条件下钻孔围岩塑性区及增透半径研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 1-10.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 许婧璟, 唐旭海, 刘泉声, 冯禹菲. 基于能量跟踪法研究岩石破碎 对滚石运动轨迹的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 541-548.
[13] 陈宇龙, 内村太郎, . 基于弹性波波速的降雨型滑坡预警系统[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3373-3386.
[14] 聂秀鹏, 逄焕平, 孙志彬, 谢松梅, 侯超群. 三维加筋边坡地震稳定性上限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3483-3492.
[15] 王瑞, 闫帅, 柏建彪, 常治国, 宋远霸, . 端帮开采下煤柱破坏宽度计算及失稳机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3167-3180.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 徐中华,王卫东. 敏感环境下基坑数值分析中土体本构模型的选择[J]. , 2010, 31(1): 258 -264 .
[2] 李丽华,陈 轮,高盛焱. 翠湖湿地软土触变性试验研究[J]. , 2010, 31(3): 765 -768 .
[3] 徐为民,屠毓敏. 某工程坑中坑塌滑原因分析及加固设计[J]. , 2010, 31(5): 1555 -1558 .
[4] 胡亚元. 利用EVP模型确定堆载预压法的卸载时机[J]. , 2010, 31(6): 1827 -1832 .
[5] 章定文,韩文君,刘松玉. 初始应力各向异性状态下圆柱孔扩张机制分析[J]. , 2010, 31(S2): 104 -108 .
[6] 李克钢,侯克鹏,李 旺. 指标动态权重对边坡稳定性的影响研究[J]. , 2009, 30(2): 492 -496 .
[7] 洪 勇,孙 涛,栾茂田,郑孝玉,汪发武. 土工环剪仪的开发及其应用研究现状[J]. , 2009, 30(3): 628 -633 .
[8] 张乾兵,朱维申,李 勇,孙林锋,张 磊. 洞群模型试验中微型多点位移计的设计及应用[J]. , 2011, 32(2): 623 -628 .
[9] 张虎元 ,赵天宇 ,吴军荣 ,严耿升 ,冯 蕾. 膨润土改性黄土衬里防渗性能室内测试与预测[J]. , 2011, 32(7): 1963 -1969 .
[10] 李京爽,侯瑜京,徐泽平,梁建辉,张雪东,宋献慧. 砂土自由场地基水平垂直振动离心模拟试验[J]. , 2011, 32(S2): 208 -214 .