Study on criterion of soil slope instability under dynamic action
-
摘要:
本研究运用FLAC3D软件，基于数值模拟计算不收敛、特征点位移突变和塑性应变区贯通三类经典判据，针对均质土坡模型，提出了边坡失稳时“彩虹状”位移云图的概念，建立了采用塑性区与 “彩虹状”位移云图的联合判据，并对本研究所提出的判据与传统判据进行了对比计算。结果表明：本研究所提出的判据得到的安全系数与其它三种判据得到安全系数相近，且具备操作性强、物理概念明确的优势。其中，采用塑性区贯通为判据得到的安全系数较小，与其它判据得出的结果误差约为1.6%，同时证明了本文提出的彩虹状位移云图判据的可靠性和准确性。本研究结果以期为土坡在地震作用下的稳定性分析及评价提供参考。
Abstract:The dynamic finite element strength discount method is an effective method for solving the seismic safety factor of slopes. The key of this method is to select a reasonable destabilization criterion for soil slopes. Due to the complexity of the damage mechanism of soil slopes, the destabilization criterion of soil slopes in the ultimate damage state has not been unified. At present, three types of criteria are commonly used, namely, plastic zone penetration （equivalent plastic strain）, numerical simulation computation does not converge, and the displacement of the characteristic points of the sudden change, through the above criteria to obtain the location of the sliding surface of the slope and the slope strength reserve safety factor. Nowadays, most scholars believe that the equivalent plastic strain penetration is a sufficient but not necessary condition for slope damage, and the selection criterion of the plastic strain amplitude has a certain degree of non-determinism and other human factors. The problem of non-convergence of finite element calculation as a criterion is that the convergence criterion is limited by the selected software, and the convergence error can be adjusted, and the physical significance as a criterion of slope instability is unclear and affected by human factors. The displacement of the characteristic point is not converged or the displacement is not converged, usually the selection of the characteristic point is at the foot of the slope, the mid-point of the slope and the shoulder, this situation can only reflect the local state of the slope, the slope may be in the local instability, but not the overall instability. Therefore, these three types of criteria have some differences and subjectivity in practical application.
In this study, the concept of rainbow-shaped displacement map is proposed based on the theoretical reasoning and simulation results of the dynamic numerical simulation calculation of the slope, and the rainbow-shaped displacement map is established as the basis for judging the seismic stability of the slope. That is to say, when the slope is destabilized and damaged as a whole, the displacement map should satisfy the following three conditions:
1） The soil unit inside the landslide body slides along the circular sliding surface relative to the internal stabilization zone of the slope. The internal stable zone of the slope and the landslide body should show a clear circular arc boundary in the permanent displacement map of numerical simulation.
2） The displacement of the landslide body shows a circular arc-shaped band distribution along the downslope direction. The layering is obvious and similar to rainbow-like, so it is defined as rainbow-like displacement cloud map.
3） The displacement of each layer of the landslide body from the slope surface to the interior of the slope body has the phenomenon of increasing and then decreasing abruptly, and the maximum value of the layer band is the sliding surface of the slope.
In order to verify the reliability of the rainbow-shaped displacement map as the basis for judging the seismic stability of slopes, this study compares and analyzes the safety coefficients of slopes under the three commonly used criteria and the rainbow-shaped criterion of the displacement map. The results show that there is not much difference between the safety coefficients obtained by using the sudden change of displacement at characteristic points, the displacement time curve, and the rainbow-shaped criterion of displacement maps, which indicates the consistency between the criterion proposed in this study and the previous three types of criterion. Zheng Yingren et al. mentioned that the plastic zone penetration is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the slope soil damage, and the results obtained in this paper can also prove this point, the safety coefficient derived from the criterion of plastic zone penetration is relatively small, and the error is 1.6% compared with the other criteria, and the reason for this discrepancy may be related to the precision of the mesh delineation and the accuracy of the calculation. The slope instability under dynamic action is more complicated, if we use the final displacement mutation of the characteristic point or the displacement time course mutation as the criterion, then we need to calculate the reduction factor several times, and whether the displacement monitoring point is steeply increasing or not depends on the researcher's subjective judgment, so it is not convincing to use it as the criterion.
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
1） There is not much difference between the safety coefficients obtained from the four criteria of plastic zone penetration, sudden change of final displacement at characteristic points, displacement time curve and rainbow displacement map, among which the safety coefficients obtained from the criterion of sudden change of displacement have a subjective variability, and can be taken as a range scale value.
2） The appearance of rainbow displacement map can be used as a criterion for the overall instability damage of soil slope under seismic action, with clear physical significance and easy operation. At the same time, it can also be combined with other criteria such as plastic zone penetration to confirm the accuracy of the safety factor.
3） When using the characteristic point displacement mutation criterion, when selecting the characteristic point, several places should be selected on the slope surface, and the monitoring point at the foot of the slope may cause inaccurate results because it is above the shear outlet.
-
Keywords:
- Instability criteria /
- Strength reduction /
- Seismic /
- Soil slope
-
-
![]()
图 2 边坡破坏位移云图
（a）局部破坏位移云图；（b）整体破坏彩虹状位移云图
Figure 2. Cloud map of slope failure displacement
（a） Localized damage displacement map；（b） Overall damage rainbow displacement map
![]()
图 4 Trinidad地震动加速度、速度及位移时程曲线
（a） 加速度时程曲线；（b） 速度时程曲线；（c） 位移时程曲线
Figure 4. Trinidad Ground Motion Acceleration，Velocity，and Displacement Time History Curve
（a） Acceleration time-course curves；（b） Velocity time-course curves；（c） Displacement time-course curves
![]()
图 6 位移云图
（a） F＝1.25时位移云图；（b） F＝1.26时位移云图
Figure 6. Displacement Cloud Map
（a） Displacement cloud at F＝1.25；（b） Displacement cloud at F＝1.26
![]()
图 7 塑性区云图
（a） F＝1.23时塑性区云图；（b） F＝1.24时塑性区云图
Figure 7. Cloud Map of Plastic Zone
（a） Cloud map of the plastic zone at F＝1.23；（b） Cloud map of the plastic zone at F＝1.24
![]()
图 8 强度折减系数与特征点位移量关系曲线
（a） 特征点水平x方向位移与强度折减系数关系曲线；（b） 特征点水平z方向位移与强度折减系数关系曲线
Figure 8. Relation Curve between Strength reduction Coefficient and Displacement of Characteristic Points
（a） Characteristic point horizontal x-direction displacement versus strength reduction factor curve； （b） Characteristic point horizontal z-direction displacement versus strength reduction factor curve
![]()
图 9 监测点位移曲线
（a） F＝1.24时监测点位移曲线；（b） F＝1.25时监测点位移曲线；（c） F＝1.26时监测点位移曲线
Figure 9. Displacement Curve of Monitoring Points
（a） Displacement curve of monitoring point at F＝1.24；（b） Displacement curve of monitoring point at F＝1.25； （c） Displacement curve of monitoring point at F＝1.26
表 1 边坡土体参数
Table 1 Slope Soil Parameters
参数 密度
/（kg·m−3）体积模量
/MPa剪切模量
/MPa抗拉强度
/kPa粘聚力
/kPa内摩擦角
/°数值 1 900 70 37 4 32 24 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同判据下的安全系数
Table 2 Safety Factors under Different Criteria
判据
类别塑性区
贯通特征点
位移突变位移时程
曲线判据位移云图
彩虹状安全系数 1. 23 1. 24—1.26 1. 24—1.26 1. 25
下载: 导出CSV
-
崔笑,张燎军,翟亚飞,马天骁,何鎏. 2020. 基于塑性应变能理论的边坡动力稳定性研究[J]. 人民长江,51(04):180–183+190. Cui X,Zhang L J,Zhai Y F,Ma T X,He L. 2020. Study on dynamic stability of slope based on plastic strain energy theory[J]. People's Yangtze River,51(04):180–183+190 (in Chinese).
陈育民,徐鼎平. 2009. FLAC/FLAC3D基础与工程实例[M]. 北京:中国水利水电出版社. Chen Y M,Xu D P. 2009. FLAC/FLAC3D Foundation and Engineering Examples[M]. Beijing:China Water Power Press (in Chinese).
邓东平,李亮,罗伟. 2012. 地震荷载作用下土钉支护边坡稳定性拟静力分析[J]. 岩土力学,33(06):1787–1794. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2012.06.029 Deng D P,Li L,Luo W. 2012. Pseudostatic analysis of stability of soil nail supported slopes under seismic loads[J]. Geotechnical Mechanics,33(06):1787–1794 (in Chinese).
工程地质手册编委会. 2018. 工程地质手册(第五版)[M]. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社. Editorial Committee of the Engineering Geology Handbook. 2018. Geological Engineering Handbook[M]. Beijing:China Architecture & Building Press (in Chinese).
华成亚,赵旭,刘子剑,曹晓立,刘洪秀. 2016. 塑性应变能判据在三维边坡稳定性分析中的应用[J]. 工业建筑,46(04):93–97+146. Hua C Y,Zhao X,Liu Z J,Cao X L,Liu H X. 2016. Application of plastic strain energy criterion in three-dimensional slope stability analysis[J]. Industrial Building,46(04):93–97+146 (in Chinese).
黄润秋. 2007. 20世纪以来中国的大型滑坡及其发生机制[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,(3):433–454. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2007.03.001 Huang R Q. 2007. Large scale landslides and their occurrence mechanisms in China since the 20th century[J]. Journal of rock mechanics and Engineering,(03):433–454 (in Chinese).
介玉新. 2023. 边坡稳定分析的相对失稳加速度方法[J]. 水力发电学报,42(2):1–11. doi: 10.11660/slfdxb.20230201 Jie Y X. 2023. The relative instability acceleration method for slope stability analysis[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Power,42(02):1–11 (in Chinese).
李德生,徐颖. 2012. 有限元强度折减法中边坡失稳判据讨论[J]. 四川建材,38(6):121–122+125. Li D S,Xu Y. 2012. Discussion on slope instability criterion in finite element strength reduction method[J]. Sichuan Building Materials,38(06):121–122+125 (in Chinese).
刘金龙,栾茂田,赵少飞,袁凡凡,王吉利. 2005. 关于强度折减有限元方法中边坡失稳判据的讨论[J]. 岩土力学,26(8):1345–1348. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2005.08.035 Liu J L,Luan M T,Zhao S F,Yuan F F,Wang J L. 2005. Discussion on slope instability criterion in Strength reduction finite element method[J]. Geotechnical Mechanics,26(8):1345–1348 (in Chinese).
吕庆,孙红月,尚岳全. 2008. 强度折减有限元法中边坡失稳判据的研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版),(1):83–87. Lv Q,Sun H Y,Shang Y Q. 2008. Study on slope instability criterion in Strength reduction finite element method[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering Edition),(01):83–87 (in Chinese).
龙绪健,黄晓燕,张春宇,周基. 2008. 有限元强度折减法中的刚度退化及边坡失稳判据[J]. 岩土工程学报,30(12):1910–1914. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2008.12.024 Long X J,Huang X Y,Zhang C Y,Zhou J. 2008. Stiffness degradation and slope instability criteria in finite element strength reduction method[J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,30(12):1910–1914 (in Chinese).
刘新荣,涂义亮,钟祖良,刘永权. 2016. 基于能量突变的强度折减法边坡失稳判据[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版),47(6):2065–2072. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2016.06.034 Liu X R,Tu Y L,Zhong Z L,Liu Y Q. 2016. Slope instability criterion based on strength reduction method of energy mutation[J]. Journal of Central South University (Natural Science Edition),47(6):2065–2072 (in Chinese).
李志平,彭振斌,何忠明,唐佳. 2016. 一种基于塑性功和突变理论的边坡临界状态确定方法[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版),47(09):3193–3200. Li Z P,Peng Z B,He Z M,Tang J. 2016. A method for determining the critical state of slopes based on plastic work and catastrophe theory[J]. Journal of Central South University (Natural Science Edition),47(9):3193–3200 (in Chinese).
裴利剑,屈本宁,钱闪光. 2010. 有限元强度折减法边坡失稳判据的统一性[J]. 岩土力学,31(10):3337–3341. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2010.10.049 Pei L J,Qu B N,Qian S G. 2010. Unification of slope instability criteria based on finite element strength reduction method[J]. Geotechnical Mechanics,31(10):3337–3341 (in Chinese).
曲宏略,胡焕国,张建经,朱大鹏. 2015. 地震动对锚索桩的响应特性研究[J]. 地震工程学报,37(2):317–323. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0844.2015.02.0317 Qu H L,Hu H G,Zhang J J,Zhu D P. 2015. Dynamic response characteristics of anchor cable piles under ground motion[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal,37(02):317–323 (in Chinese).
任永强,何昌荣,路永珍. 2011. 基于有限元水平地震荷载作用下土坡稳定性分析[J]. 路基工程,(6):41–44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-8825.2011.06.012 Ren Y Q,He C R,Lu Y Z. 2011. Stability analysis of soil slopes under horizontal seismic loads based on finite element method[J]. Roadbed Engineering,(06):41–44 (in Chinese).
史卜涛,张云,张巍. 2016. 边坡稳定性分析的物质点强度折减法[J]. 岩土工程学报,38(9):1678–1684. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201609015 Shi B T,Zhang Y,Zhang W. 2016. Material point strength reduction method for slope stability analysis[J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,38(09):1678–1684 (in Chinese).
宋二祥. 1997. 土工结构安全系数的有限元计算[J]. 岩土工程学报,(2):4–10. Song E X. 1997. Finite Metacomputing of safety coefficient of geotechnical structure[J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,(02):4–10 (in Chinese).
涂义亮,刘新荣,钟祖良,杜立兵,王鹏. 2018. 三类边坡失稳判据的统一性[J]. 岩土力学,39(1):173–180+190. Tu Y L,Liu X R,Zhong Z L,Du L B,Wang P. 2018. Uniformity of three types of slope instability criteria[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,39(01):173–180+1901 (in Chinese).
王飞阳,潘泓. 2016. 不同失稳判据下边坡稳定性的规律性[J]. 土木建筑与环境工程,38(6):10–16. Wang F Y,Pan H. 2016. The Regularity of Slope Stability under Different Instability Criteria[J]. Civil Architecture and Environmental Engineering,38(06):10–16 (in Chinese).
邢洋,王喜刚,刘峰,高健,田继龙. 2021. 二维边坡最危险滑动面搜索及评价研究[J]. 路基工程,(1):14–18. Xing Y,Wang X G,Liu F,Gao J,Tian J L. 2021. Research on the search and evaluation of the most dangerous sliding surface of two-dimensional slopes[J]. Roadbed Engineering,(1):14–18 (in Chinese).
言志信,张森,张学东,段建. 2010. 地震边坡失稳机理及稳定性分析[J]. 工程地质学报,18(6):844–850. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9665.2010.06.005 Yan Z X,Zhang S,Zhang X D,Duan J. 2010. Failure mechanism and stability analysis of slope under earthquake[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,18(6):844–850 (in Chinese).
言志信,曹小红,张刘平,张海东. 2011. 地震作用下黄土边坡动力响应数值分析[J]. 岩土力学,32(S2):610–614. Yan Z X,Cao X H,Zhang L P,Zhang H D. 2011. Numerical analysis of loess slope dynamic response under earthquake[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,32(S2):610–614 (in Chinese).
郑宏,田斌,刘德富,冯强. 2005. 关于有限元边坡稳定性分析中安全系数的定义问题[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,(13):2225–2230. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2005.13.004 Zheng H,Tian B,Liu D F,Feng Q. 2005. On the Definition of Safety Factor in Finite Element Slope Stability Analysis[J]. Journal of rock mechanics and Engineering,(13):2225–2230 (in Chinese).
张江伟,高晓莉,李小军,王世文,王玉石. 2016. 土质边坡地震动力响应规律研究[J]. 震灾防御技术,11(4):771–780. Zhang J W,Gao X L,Li X J,Wang S W,Wang Y S. 2016. Dynamic response analysis of soil slope under seismic wave[J]. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention,11(4):771–780 (in Chinese).
张坤勇,杜伟,李广山,钟思成,刘子剑. 2017. 土质边坡归一化变形量失稳判据研究[J]. 长江科学院院报,34(10):107–113. Zhang K Y,Du W,Li G S,Zhong S C,Liu Z J. 2017. Research on the criterion for normalized deformation and instability of soil slopes[J]. Journal of the Yangtze River Academy of Sciences,34(10):107–113 (in Chinese).
赵尚毅,郑颖人,时卫民,王敬林. 2002. 用有限元强度折减法求边坡稳定安全系数[J]. 岩土工程学报,(03):343–346. Zhao S Y,Zheng Y R,Shi W M,Wang J L. 2002. Calculate the safety factor of slope stability using the finite element strength reduction method[J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,(3):343–346 (in Chinese).
赵尚毅,郑颖人,张玉芳. 2005. 极限分析有限元法讲座—Ⅱ有限元强度折减法中边坡失稳的判据探讨[J]. 岩土力学,(02):332–336. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2005.02.035 Zhao S Y,Zheng Y R,Zhang Y F. 2005. Lecture on Finite Element Method of Limit Analysis—Ⅱ Discussion on the criterion of slope instability in finite element strength reduction method[J]. Geotechnical Mechanics,(2):332−336 (in Chinese).
张友利,彭畅,何建新. 2020. 塑性应变能判据在边坡动力稳定分析中的应用[J]. 水利科技与经济,26(12):15–18+23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7175.2020.12.003 Zhang Y L,Peng C,He J X. 2020. Application of plastic strain energy criterion in slope dynamic stability analysis[J]. Water Conservancy Technology and Economy,26(12):15–18+23 (in Chinese).
郑颖人,赵尚毅,宋雅坤. 2005. 有限元强度折减法研究进展[J]. 后勤工程学院学报,3:1–6. Zheng Y R,Zhao S Y,Song Y K. 2005. Research progress of finite element strength reduction method[J]. Journal of the School of Logistics Engineering,3:1–6 (in Chinese).
张兆鹏. 2018. 边坡地震稳定性的数值模拟研究[D]. 中国地震局工程力学研究所. Zhang Z P. 2018. Study on Numerical Simulation of Slope Seismic Stability[D]. HeiLongJiang:Institute of Engineering Mechanics,China Earthquake Administration (in Chinese).
Zienkiewicz O C,Humpheson C,Lewis R W. 1975. Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics[J]. Geotechnique,25(4):671–689. doi: 10.1680/geot.1975.25.4.671
计量
- 文章访问数: 117
- HTML全文浏览量: 10
- PDF下载量: 45
