边坡稳定性分析的三种极限平衡法对比研究  

Comparative Analysis of Three Different Rigid Body Limit Equilibrium Methods

作　　者：陈勋辉 陈义涛[1] 黄耀英[1] 吕晓曼[1] 徐佰林 

机构地区：[1]三峡大学水利与环境学院,湖北宜昌443002 [2]中国电建集团华东勘测设计研究院有限公司,浙江杭州310014

出　　处：《人民黄河》2016年第1期116-119,共4页Yellow River

基　　金：国家自然科学基金资助项目(51209124)

摘　　要：极限平衡法在边坡稳定性分析中应用十分广泛,对多余变量假定的不同构成了不同的极限平衡条分法。采用瑞典条分法、毕肖普法、M-P法三种传统条分法,结合某土石坝下游坝坡滑面受力情况,对比分析了考虑渗流与不考虑渗流作用下三种方法计算的滑动面各条块底部的法向力和切向力的分布,以及各条块安全系数和整体安全系数。分析表明:毕肖普法和M-P法计算的条块底部法向力和切向力分布规律基本一致,条块底部法向合力和切向合力均较接近,且计算的各条块安全系数的平均值及整体安全系数也较接近;而瑞典条分法忽略条块间作用力,导致其计算的条块底部受力分布与毕肖普法和M-P法存在一定差异,且条块底部法向合力和切向合力略小,计算所得各条块安全系数的平均值和整体安全系数均略小。Limit equilibrium method is widely used in slope stability,due to the different assumes about the superfluous variable and thus constitutes different limit equilibrium methods. According to the force condition of downstream rock by using three different traditional slice methods( Sweden Slice Method,Bishop Method and M-P Method),this paper comparatively analyzed the curve distribution of bottom-slice normal force and tangential force,and calculated the average safety coefficient of slice stability,overall safety coefficient of slice stability in the circumstances of whether or not taking into account of seepage effect. The result shows that the composite force and the rule of the curve distribution of bottom-slice normal force and tangential force,and the safety coefficient of slice stability,overall safety coefficient of slice stability by Bishop Method are consistent with M-P Method. While there exists some differences between Sweden Slice Method and Bishop Method,M-P Method,the composite force of bottom slice normal force and tangential force,and the safety coefficient of slice stability,overall safety coefficient of slice stability by Sweden Slice Method are slightly less than that by Bishop Method and M-P Method because of the ignorance of inter-slice force.

关 键 词：刚体极限平衡法 安全系数 稳定性分析 渗流作用 土石坝 

分 类 号：TU457[建筑科学—岩土工程]