›› 2013, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 372-380.

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

两种滑动面型式下边坡稳定性计算方法的研究

邓东平,李 亮   

  1. 中南大学 土木工程学院,长沙 410075
  • 收稿日期:2011-11-14 出版日期:2013-02-11 发布日期:2013-03-01
  • 作者简介:邓东平,男,1985年生,博士研究生,主要从事道路与铁道工程方面的研究工作
  • 基金资助:
    湖南省研究生科研创新项目(No. CX2012B056);国家自然科学项目资助(No. 51078359);贵州省交通运输厅科技项目(No. 2010-122-020)

Research on calculation methods of slope stability under two types of sliding surface

DENG Dong-ping, LI Liang   

  1. College of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
  • Received:2011-11-14 Online:2013-02-11 Published:2013-03-01

摘要: 基于圆弧和任意曲线两种滑动面型式,对边坡稳定性计算方法中的瑞典法、简化Bishop法、简化Janbu法、严格Janbu法、Morgenster-Price法、Sarma法和不平衡推力法进行研究。对上述各种方法的研究成果进行了总结,并对Morgenster-Price法中的条间力函数 选择了4种形式(即 为常数0.1、0.5、1.0及半正弦函数),对不平衡推力法中的公式进行了改进。通过算例对比,及当条分数不同、边坡坡角和坡高变化时,分析了这些方法的特点,由分析结果可知:(1)瑞典法和简化Janbu法计算得的安全系数最小,简化Bishop法和不平衡推力法与严格法得到的结果颇为接近;(2)任意曲线滑动面方法较圆弧滑动面方法计算得的安全系数稍小,且得到的临界滑动面与临界圆弧滑动面相接近,因而表明,圆弧滑动面作为一种近似的临界滑动面能够满足实际工程需要;(3)均质边坡采用较少条分数即可获得较高的安全系数计算精度,非均质边坡需一定数量的条分保证结果的可靠性;(4)Sarma法对土条侧面法向力和剪切的假设,使得其在均质边坡计算得的安全系数比其他方法要大,有偏于不安全的考虑,但Sarma法能够考虑边坡非均质对条分法的影响;(5)当边坡外形(如坡角、坡高)变化时,严格Janbu法在两种滑动面型式下计算得的安全系数相差很小,而其他方法稍大一些;(6)Morgenster- Price法中,条间力函数 对计算得到的结果影响很小。

关键词: 边坡稳定性, 安全系数, 计算方法, 圆弧滑动面, 任意曲线滑动面

Abstract: Based on two types of sliding surface, arc and arbitrary curve, the calculation methods of slope stability, including Sweden method, simplified Bishop method, simplified Janbu method, corrected Janbu methods, Morgenster-Price method, Sarma method and unbalanced thrust force method, are studied. Research results of above-mentioned methods are summarized. At the same time, four forms in Morgenster-Price method inter-slice force function f(x) are chosen, i.e. the constants of 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 and semi-sine function, and the formula in unbalanced thrust force method is improved. Through comparing some examples and analyzing the characteristics of these methods with different slice numbers slope angles, slope heights, and the conclusions can be obtained as follows: the factor of safety (FOS) calculated by Swedish method and simplified Janbu method is the least, and the results obtained by simplified Bishop method and the unbalanced thrust force method are quite close to the corrected method. The FOS calculated by arbitrary curve sliding surface method is slightly smaller than that of circular sliding surface method; and the critical sliding surface got by this method is close to the critical circular sliding face; so it shows that circular sliding surface, as an approximation of the critical sliding surface, can meet the need of practical engineering. Adopting a small amount of slices can obtain high accuracy of FOS in homogeneous slope; and a certain number of slices are needed to ensure reliability of the results in heterogeneous slope. In Sarma method assumption for the normal force and shear force on the side of slices makes calculated FOS larger than that obtained by other methods in homogeneous slope; then there are unsafe considerations, but Sarma method can consider the impact of heterogeneity in slope on slice method. When the slope shape (such as slope angle, slope height) changes, difference of FOS calculated by corrected Janbu method under two types of sliding surface is small; but the difference of FOS calculated by other methods is slightly larger. In Morgenster-Price method inter-slice force function f(x) has little effect on the calculated results.

Key words: slope stability, factor of safety (FOS), calculation method, circular sliding surface, arbitrary curve sliding surface

中图分类号: 

  • TU 457
[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] 邓涛, 林聪煜, 柳志鹏, 黄明, 陈文菁, . 大位移条件下水平受荷单桩的简明弹塑性计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 95-102.
[3] 章定文, 刘志祥, 沈国根, 鄂俊宇, . 超大直径浅埋盾构隧道土压力实测分析 及其计算方法适用性评价[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 91-98.
[4] 王钦科, 马建林, 陈文龙, 杨彦鑫, 胡中波, . 上覆土嵌岩扩底桩抗拔承载特性离心 模型试验及计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3405-3415.
[5] 李瑞山, 袁晓铭. 成层场地基本周期简化计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3227-3235.
[6] 张海娜, 陈从新, 郑 允, 孙朝燚, 张亚鹏, 刘秀敏, . 坡顶荷载作用下岩质边坡弯曲倾倒破坏分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 2938-2946.
[7] 陈峥, 何平, 颜杜民, 高红杰, 聂奥祥, . 超前支护下隧道掌子面稳定性极限上限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2154-2162.
[8] 吴关叶, 郑惠峰, 徐建荣. 三维复杂块体系统边坡深层加固条件下稳定性及 破坏机制模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2369-2378.
[9] 余 国, 谢谟文, 郑正勤, 覃事河, 杜 岩, . 基于GIS的边坡稳定性计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(4): 1397-1404.
[10] 马文冠, 刘 润, 练继建, 郭绍曾. 粉土中筒型基础贯入阻力的研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(4): 1307-1312.
[11] 任晋岚, 陈曦, 王冬勇, 吕彦楠. 基于广义Hoek-Brown准则的瞬时线性化 强度折减技术[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4865-4872.
[12] 夏侯云山, 张抒, 唐辉明, 刘晓, 吴琼, . 考虑参数空间变异结构的结构化交叉约束 随机场模拟方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4935-4945.
[13] 李典庆, 周强, 曹子君, . 基于广义可靠指标相对安全率的岩土工程 设计安全判据[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 3977-3986.
[14] 唐洪祥, 韦文成. 耦合强度各向异性与应变软化的边坡稳定 有限元分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 4092-4100.
[15] 尹小涛,严 飞,秦雨樵,周 磊,王东英, . 地震作用下华丽高速公路金沙江桥华坪岸顺层边坡动力稳定性评价[J]. , 2018, 39(S1): 387-394.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 吴昌瑜,张 伟,李思慎,朱国胜. 减压井机械淤堵机制与防治方法试验研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3181 -3187 .
[2] 陈红江,李夕兵,刘爱华. 矿井突水水源判别的多组逐步Bayes判别方法研究[J]. , 2009, 30(12): 3655 -3659 .
[3] 和法国,谌文武,韩文峰,张景科. 高分子材料SH固沙性能与微结构相关性研究[J]. , 2009, 30(12): 3803 -3807 .
[4] 雷永生. 西安地铁二号线下穿城墙及钟楼保护措施研究[J]. , 2010, 31(1): 223 -228 .
[5] 肖 忠,王元战,及春宁,黄泰坤,单 旭. 波浪作用下加固软基上大圆筒结构稳定性分析[J]. , 2010, 31(8): 2648 -2654 .
[6] 柴 波,殷坤龙,陈丽霞,李远耀. 岩体结构控制下的斜坡变形特征[J]. , 2009, 30(2): 521 -525 .
[7] 赵洪波,茹忠亮,张士科. SVM在地下工程可靠性分析中的应用[J]. , 2009, 30(2): 526 -530 .
[8] 徐 扬,高 谦,李 欣,李俊华,贾云喜. 土石混合体渗透性现场试坑试验研究[J]. , 2009, 30(3): 855 -858 .
[9] 邓华锋,张国栋,王乐华,邓成进,郭 靖,鲁 涛. 导流隧洞开挖施工的爆破振动监测与分析[J]. , 2011, 32(3): 855 -860 .
[10] 谭峰屹,邹志悝,邹荣华,林祖锴,郑德高. 换填黏性土料工程特性试验研究[J]. , 2009, 30(S2): 154 -157 .