强震作用下加固边坡的动力响应及不同加固方式的比较研究  

Dynamic response of slopes subjected to intense earthquakes and effect comparison between various support modes

作　　者：汪鹏程[1] 朱大勇[1] 许强[2] 

机构地区：[1]合肥工业大学土木与水利工程学院,安徽合肥230009 [2]成都理工大学地质灾害防治与地质环境保护国家重点实验室,四川成都610059

出　　处：《合肥工业大学学报（自然科学版）》2009年第10期1501-1504,共4页Journal of Hefei University of Technology：Natural Science

基　　金：地质灾害防治和地质环境保护国家重点实验室开放基金资助项目(DZKJ-0813);国家自然科学基金资助项目(40702049);国家973计划资助项目(2008CB425801)

摘　　要：文章建立一土质边坡模型,按照常规设计支护技术参数,对在强震作用下的挡土墙、抗滑桩和预应力锚索3种支护形式下的边坡进行动力分析,得到不同支护方式下边坡的动力响应,重点从动力放大系数、残余变形、动轴力、动拉应力等方面,对3种支护形式的加固效果做对比。结果表明,动力响应差别很大,动力放大系数以抗滑桩加固最大,挡土墙加固最小;残余变形以挡土墙加固最大,预应力锚索加固最小,挡土墙加固难以维持强震下边坡的整体稳定;挡土墙加固下坡顶面出现拉应力最大;综合比较,预应力锚索加固效果最优,应作为多震地区边坡防治的首选方案。The dynamic analysis of the soil slope bearing intense earthquakes is conducted seperately under three support modes-the retaining walt, the anti-slide pile, and the prestressed cable, and the slope＇s dynamic responses are obtained. Moreover, the effects of the three support modes are com- pared. The results show that the slope＇s dynamic response under the three support modes are very different, the anti-slide pile produces was the greatest dynamic amplification, while the retaining wall brings about the smallest. As for the residual deformation, the retaining wall makes the greatest,and the prestressed cable results in the smallest, and the retaining wall is not effective enough to ensure stability of the slope. Tense stress appears on the top surface of the slope under the three support modes. As a whole, the prestressed cable has more advantages among the three support modes, and should be the preferred support method for the protection of slopes in mountainous areas.

关 键 词：地震 边坡 动力响应 挡土墙 抗滑桩 预应力锚索 

分 类 号：TU457[建筑科学—岩土工程]