岩土力学 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (7): 2015-2022.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2021.0087

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于可靠度的传递系数法显式与隐式对应关系

郭海强,李安洪,徐骏,李炼   

  1. 中铁二院工程集团有限责任公司,四川 成都 610031
  • 收稿日期:2021-01-13 修回日期:2021-03-24 出版日期:2021-07-12 发布日期:2021-07-19
  • 作者简介:郭海强,男,1987年生,博士,高级工程师,主要从事路基可靠度的研究工作。
  • 基金资助:
    中铁二院工程集团有限责任公司科技研究计划课题(No. KYY2019143(19-21),No. KYY2018075(18-20))。

Study on corresponding relationship between explicit and implicit solutions in slope stability analysis based on reliability

GUO Hai-qiang, LI An-hong, XU Jun, LI Lian   

  1. China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group Co. Ltd., Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, China
  • Received:2021-01-13 Revised:2021-03-24 Online:2021-07-12 Published:2021-07-19
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the Science and Technology Research Project of China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group Co. Ltd ((KYY2019143 (19-21), (KYY2018075 (18-20)).

摘要: 传递系数显式解法与隐式解法在设计表达式、抗滑力定义等方面均存在差异,造成两种方法的稳定系数(安全系数)K及拟设工程的抗滑力Pn存在争议。针对以上问题,通过实例对比说明显式解法与隐式解法存在的具体差异;其次,引入可靠度的方法计算边(滑)坡的可靠指标,并通过与安全系数的对应关系分析两种方法差异的原因。研究结果表明,相同安全系数下,隐式解法所得到的拟设工程抗滑力Pn被放大,造成二者所设计的抗滑结构产生较大差异;相同设计参数下,显式解与隐式解法的稳定系数(安全系数)不等价,二者所对应的边(滑)坡可靠指标? 不等,所对应的稳定系数(安全系数)无法统一。研究结论可用于指导工程设计及相关标准编制。

关键词: 边坡, 稳定性, 传递系数法, 显式解, 隐式解, 可靠指标

Abstract: There are differences between explicit and implicit solution methods in design expression, definition of slip resistance etc., resulting in disputes between the two methods in terms of stability factor (safety factor) K and slip resistance of the proposed project. In view of the above problems, the specific differences between the obvious solution and the implicit solution are firstly illustrated through the comparison of examples. Secondly, the method of reliability is introduced to calculate the slope reliability index, the reason for the difference between the two methods is analyzed through the corresponding relation with the safety factor. The results show that under the same safety factor, the slip resistance of the proposed project obtained by the implicit solution is amplified, resulting in a great difference of the anti-sliding structure designed by the two methods. Under the same design parameters, the stability factor (safety factor) K of the explicit solution is not equivalent to the implicit solution, thus their corresponding reliability indexes are different. The stability factor (safety factor) between the two methods can’t be unified. The research can be used to guide the engineering design and related standards.

Key words: slope, stability, transfer coefficient method, explicit solution, implicit solution, reliability index

中图分类号: P 694
[1] 冯德銮, 余洋, 梁仕华. 碱激发地聚物固化滨海软土的强度和水稳定性研究进展与评述[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 13-39.
[2] 邓其宁, 崔玉龙, 王炯超, 郑俊, 许冲, . 三维边坡稳定性计算的ChatGPT辅助编程方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 322-334.
[3] 董源, 胡英国, 刘美山, 李庚泉, 马晨阳. 均质岩石高边坡开挖爆破累积损伤的演化机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2929-2942.
[4] 徐全, 侯靖, 杨剑, 杨昕光, 倪绍虎, 陈鑫. 基于合成岩体技术的岩质边坡稳定性精细化分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2062-2070.
[5] 江沂键, 李焕焕, 朱大勇, 凌道盛, . 考虑推力线位置的边坡线性规划模型与极限平衡上下限解[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1745-1754.
[6] 李邵军, 张世殊, 李永红, 柳秀洋, 李治国, 徐鼎平, 程丽娟, 江权, 汤大明, 陈刚, . 双江口水电站极高应力大型地下厂房硬岩破坏机制与稳定性控制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1581-1594.
[7] 高品红, 高晨博, 彭成威, 刘飞禹, . 降雨作用下花岗岩残积土边坡模型试验及离散元分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1632-1642.
[8] 刘祥宁, 张文杰, . 酸性干湿循环下铬污染土固化体浸出行为研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1196-1204.
[9] 曹虎, 张广清, 李世远, 汪文瑞, 谢彭旭, 孙伟, 李帅, . 基于断裂过程区的压裂驱油水力裂缝 扩展模型及应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 798-810.
[10] 宋享桦, 肖衡林, 倪化勇, 谭勇, . 降雨作用下砂土边坡失稳破坏触发机制宏细观研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 969-979.
[11] 孙文超, 王君豪, 徐文杰, 董晓阳, 任禾, 王洪兵, 张学杰, 王恒威, . 基于物质点法的高速公路弃渣场稳定性及 灾害动力学分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 991-1000.
[12] 元志镕, 蒋水华, 常志璐, 向晖, 刘玉伟, 黄劲松, . 考虑初始含水率非均匀分布及孔隙水重分布的边坡可靠度分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 1001-1012.
[13] 刘文静, 邓辉, 周昕. 地震作用下含双层韧性剪切带高陡岩质边坡动力响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3534-3548.
[14] 赵飞, 石振明, 俞松波, 周圆媛, 李博, 陈建峰, 张清照, 郑鸿超. 层状岩质边坡动力失稳及加固研究进展[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3585-3614.
[15] 邓志平, 钟敏, 蒋水华, 潘敏, 黄劲松, . 土体参数非平稳随机场模拟及三维边坡高效可靠度分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3243-3252.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!