作者中心
专家审稿
编委审稿
主编审稿
STUDY ON INFLUENCE FACTORS OF STABILITY AND FAILURE MODES OF ANTI-DIP ROCK SLOPE WITH SOFT AND HARD INTERBED
-
摘要: 反倾边坡破坏会诱发严重的地质灾害，因此对软硬互层反倾岩质边坡的稳定性及破坏模式进行研究具有重要的意义。本文基于数值模拟的方法，利用离散元UDEC软件，首先基于正交试验设计法，考虑了边坡坡角、岩层倾角、坡高、相邻软硬岩层总厚度、硬软岩层厚度比、硬软岩层力学参数序号比、结构面力学参数7个因素的影响，设计了32组正交试验，利用强度折减法对边坡的稳定性及可能的破坏模式进行模拟，并从边坡稳定系数和位移两个方面对计算结果进行敏感性分析。结果表明，边坡坡角和岩层倾角对稳定系数影响较大，结构面力学参数和坡高对边坡位移影响较大；然后对边坡的破坏模式进行归纳总结，将软硬互层反倾边坡的破坏模式分为弯曲倾倒破坏、坍塌滑动破坏和块体倾倒破坏3种类型，并对每种破坏类型的边坡特征进行详细分析。Abstract: The failure of anti-dip slopes can induce serious geological disasters, so it is of great significance to study the stability and failure modes of anti-dip rock slopes with soft and hard interbed. This paper is based on numerical simulation method and uses discrete element software UDEC. Firstly, this paper takes into account the influence of the slope angle, rock inclination angle, slope height, total thickness of adjacent soft and hard rock layers, thickness ratio of hard and soft rock layers, ratio of mechanical parameter number of hard and soft rock layers, and the mechanical parameters of structural plane. Then based on orthogonal experimental design method, this paper designs 32 sets of orthogonal tests to simulate the stability of the slope and possible failure modes by the strength reduction method. The sensitivity analysis is conducted from two aspects of slope safety factor and displacement. It is found that the slope angle and rock inclination angle have a great impact on the safety factor, and the mechanical parameters of structural plane and slope height have a great impact on the slope displacement. Then the failure modes of anti-dip rock slope with soft and hard interbed are summarized and divided into three types: bending-dumping, collapse-sliding and block-dumping failures.The characteristics of each failure modes are analysed in detail.
-
Key words:
- Anti-dip slope /
- Soft and hard interbed /
- Numerical simulation /
- UDEC /
- Orthogonal test
-
图 1 反倾边坡倾倒破坏类型
a. 块体倾倒；b. 弯曲倾倒；c. 块体-弯曲倾倒
Figure 1. Types of toppling failure of anti-dip slope
图 7 17号、11号和28号试验模拟结果图
a. 17号边坡变形图；b. 17号边坡塑性区图；c. 17号边坡总位移等值线图；d. 11号边坡变形图；e. 11号边坡塑性区图；f. 11号边坡总位移等值线图；g. 28号边坡变形图; h. 28号边坡塑性区图；i. 28号边坡总位移等值线图
Figure 7. Simulation results of No.17, No.11 and No.28 tests
表 1 岩层力学参数选取
Table 1. Selection of mechanical parameters of rock
序号 重度γ/kN·m-3 内摩擦角φ/(°) 黏聚力c/MPa 弹性模量E/GPa 泊松比μ 抗拉强度T/MPa 1 22.5 27 0.20 1.30 0.350 0.10 2 23.5 33 0.45 3.65 0.325 0.22 3 25.5 45 1.10 11.00 0.275 0.60 4 26.5 50 1.50 16.00 0.250 0.80 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 结构面力学参数选取
Table 2. Selection of mechanical parameters of structural plane
序号 剪切模量Jks/GPa 体积模量Jkn/GPa 摩擦角Jfri/(°) 黏聚力Jcoh/MPa 抗拉强度Jten/MPa 1 1 1 10 0.01 0.01 2 30 30 20 0.03 0.03 3 60 60 30 0.06 0.06 4 90 90 40 0.09 0.09
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 硬软岩层力学参数序号组合
Table 3. Combination of mechanical parameter number of hard and soft rock layers
硬软岩层力学参数序号比λ 硬岩序号 软岩序号 1.5 3 2 2 4 2 3 3 1 4 4 1
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 正交试验设计表
Table 4. Orthogonal test table
试验编号 坡角α/(°) 岩层倾角β/(°) 坡高h/m 相邻软硬岩层总厚度D/m 硬软岩厚度比η 硬软岩层力学参数序号比λ 结构面参数(以Jfri为代表)/(°) 1 60.00 45.00 40.00 6.00 0.50 1.50 20.00 2 75.00 60.00 80.00 6.00 0.50 4.00 30.00 3 45.00 30.00 40.00 2.00 0.50 4.00 30.00 4 45.00 30.00 100.00 4.00 0.50 3.00 20.00 5 75.00 30.00 80.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 20.00 6 30.00 75.00 60.00 4.00 0.50 2.00 30.00 7 45.00 60.00 40.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 20.00 8 45.00 75.00 60.00 6.00 0.50 3.00 10.00 9 60.00 30.00 60.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 10.00 10 75.00 60.00 60.00 1.00 0.50 3.00 20.00 11 60.00 45.00 100.00 1.00 0.50 2.00 30.00 12 30.00 30.00 40.00 1.00 0.50 1.50 10.00 13 45.00 45.00 80.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 14 60.00 75.00 40.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 30.00 15 75.00 45.00 40.00 4.00 0.50 4.00 40.00 16 30.00 60.00 40.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 40.00 17 60.00 60.00 80.00 4.00 0.50 1.50 10.00 18 75.00 45.00 100.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 10.00 19 60.00 30.00 80.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 40.00 20 30.00 75.00 80.00 2.00 0.50 1.50 20.00 21 60.00 75.00 100.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 20.00 22 45.00 45.00 60.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 40.00 23 75.00 30.00 60.00 4.00 1.00 1.50 30.00 24 45.00 75.00 80.00 1.00 0.50 4.00 40.00 25 30.00 45.00 60.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 20.00 26 45.00 60.00 100.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 30.00 27 30.00 30.00 100.00 6.00 0.50 2.00 40.00 28 75.00 75.00 40.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 10.00 29 30.00 45.00 80.00 6.00 1.00 3.00 30.00 30 60.00 60.00 60.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 40.00 31 75.00 75.00 100.00 6.00 2.00 1.50 40.00 32 30.00 60.00 100.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 10.00
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 稳定系数的极差分析结果
Table 5. Range analysis results of safety factor
平均值 α β h D η λ Jfri k1 5.19 4.59 4.13 4.20 3.37 4.07 2.81 k2 4.20 4.23 4.05 3.81 3.70 4.00 3.52 k3 2.93 3.38 3.28 3.14 4.27 2.76 3.59 k4 2.39 2.52 3.25 3.57 — 3.89 4.79 R 2.80 2.07 0.87 1.07 0.89 1.31 1.99 敏感性 α>β>Jfri>λ>D>η>h
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 稳定系数的方差分析结果
Table 6. Variance analysis results of safety factor
源 III类平方和 自由度 均方 F 显著性 修正模型 98.687a 20 4.934 8.158 0 截距 411.143 1 411.143 679.713 0 坡角α 38.214 3 12.738 21.059 0 岩层倾角β 20.597 3 6.866 11.350 0.001 坡高h 5.414 3 1.805 2.983 0.078 相邻软硬岩层总厚度D 4.781 3 1.594 2.634 0.102 硬软岩层厚度比η 4.240 2 2.120 3.505 0.066 硬软岩层力学参数序号比λ 9.151 3 3.050 5.043 0.019 结构面参数Jfri 16.290 3 5.430 8.977 0.003 误差 6.654 11 0.605 总计 538.035 32 修正后总计 105.340 31 a. R 方=0.937(调整后R 方=0.822)
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 32组边坡潜在破坏模式特征归纳
Table 7. Summary of potential failure modes of 32 groups of slopes
破坏模式 试验编号 边坡特征 弯曲倾倒 1、2、5、6、7、8、9、10、13、15、17、18、20、21、23、30、32 ①坡角较大，倾角较大，其中坡角与倾角之和均大于90°；②软岩厚度占比较大，硬软岩厚度比大多为0.5；③岩体和结构面强度参数较小 坍塌滑动 3、4、11、12、19、22、25、26 ①倾角较小，大多小于45°，高度较高；②软岩厚度占比较大，硬软岩厚度比大多为0.5，层厚较小，多为1m；③岩体强度和结构面参数较小 块体倾倒 14、16、24、27、28、29、31 ①坡角较大，坡高较低，多为80m以下；②倾角较大，大多大于60°；③硬岩厚度占比较大且岩体强度参数较大
下载: 导出CSV
-
Amini M, Ardestani A, Khosravi M H. 2017. Stability analysis of slide-toe-toppling failure[J]. Engineering Geology, 228 : 82-96. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.07.008 Cen D F, Huang D, Huang R Q. 2016. Simulation of deformation and failure for blocky anti-dip thick-layered rock slopes using particle flow code and analysis on its stability[J]. Journal of Central South University(Science and Technology), 47 (3): 984-993. Gao L T, Yan E C, Xie L F. 2015. Improved Goodman-Bray method in consideration of groundwater effect[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 32 (2): 78-83. Goodman R E, Bray J W. 1976. Toppling of rock slopes[C]//Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference, Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes. Colorado, Boulder: 201-223. Goodman R E. 1976. Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks[M]. Minnesota: West Publishing Company. Gu D M, Huang D. 2016. A complex rock topple-rock slide failure of an anaclinal rock slope in the Wu Gorge, Yangtze River, China[J]. Engineeing Geology, 208 : 165-180. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.04.037 Huang D, Gu D M. 2017. Influence of filling-drawdown cycles of the Three Gorges reservoir on deformation and failure behaviors of anaclinal rock slopes in the Wu Gorge[J]. Geomorphology, 295 : 489-506. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.07.028 Huang D, Ma H, Meng Q J, et al. 2020. Centrifugal model test and numerical simulation for anaclinal rock slopes with soft-hard interbedded structures[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 42 (7): 1286-1295. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2018. UDEC—universal distinct element code User's Manual(version 6.0)[R]. Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Jiang J Y. 2017. Experimental study on failure characteristics and support effect of soft and hard interbedded slope toppling deformation in large scale centrifuge—a case study of the right bank slope of the right bank of the Miao tail[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology. Lan H X, Zhang N, Li L P, et al. 2021. Risk analysis of major engineering geological hazards for Sichuan-Tibet Railway in the phase of feasibility study[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 29 (2): 326-341. Li G. 2016. Physical model test on seismic dynamic response characteristics of counter-tilt combinational rock slopes—taking the Guantan landslide as Example[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology. Liao S B, Xiao H B, Liu Y P. 2019. Analysis on influence factors of the stability of toppling slope based on orthogonal numerical tests[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 15 (S2): 1003-1008. Liu C Z, Chen C L. 2020. Achievements and countermeasures in risk reduction of geological disasters in China[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 28 (2): 375-383. Liu H J. 2012. Research on the toppling deformation mechanism of counter-tilt slate slope in the mountainous area of southern Anhui[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology. Ma H, Huang D, Shi L. 2020. Numerical simulation of S-shaped failure evolution of anti-dip slope based on statistics of broken length and layer thickness[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 28 (6): 1160-1171. Ma H. 2019. Numerical simulation of centrifugal model test for toppling deformation of layered anaclinal slope[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing University. Sun W B. 2018. Deformation analysis of topping rock slope based on discrete element method[D]. Xi'an: Xi'an University of Technology. Tan B H, Ren F Y, Ning Y J, et al. 2018. A new mining scheme for hanging-wall ore-body during the transition from open pit to underground mining: a numerical study[J]. Advances in Civil Engineering: 1-17. Wang F, Tang H M, Ning Y B, et al. 2019. Stability analysis of deep-seated topping in interlayered rock slopes based on evolution process[J]. Geological Science and Technology Information, 38 (5): 186-194. Xie L F. 2015. Research on characteristics and evolution mechanism of topping deformation of anti-dip stratified rock slope[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences. Zhang J M. 2020. State of art and trends of rock slope stability with soft interlayer[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 28 (3): 626-638. Zhang S R, Tan Y S, Wang C, et al. 2014. Research on deformation failure mechanism and stability of slope rock mass containing multi-weak interlayers[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 35 (6): 1695-1702. Zhao H, Li W L, Wei J J, et al. 2018. Model test study on topping deformation evolution process of counter-tilt slope[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 26 (3): 749-757. Zheng Y, Chen C X, Liu T T, et al. 2015. Analysis of toppling failure of rock slopes under the loads applied on the top[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 36 (9): 2639-2658. Zheng Y, Chen C X, Zhu X X, et al. 2014. Analysis of toppling failure of rock slopes subjected to seismic loads[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 35 (4): 1025-1040. Zhou Y. 2020. Study on the failure mode of tipping deformation of the anti-dipping layered slope of Luoyang rapeseed dam[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology. 岑夺丰, 黄达, 黄润秋. 2016. 块裂反倾巨厚层状岩质边坡变形破坏颗粒流模拟及稳定性分析[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 47 (3): 984-993. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZNGD201603035.htm 高连通, 晏鄂川, 谢良甫. 2015. 考虑地下水作用的Goodman-Bray方法改进及应用[J]. 长江科学院院报, 32 (2): 78-83. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CJKB201502019.htm 黄达, 马昊, 孟秋杰, 等. 2020. 软硬互层岩质反倾边坡弯曲倾倒离心模型试验与数值模拟研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 42 (7): 1286-1295. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTGC202007017.htm 蒋金阳. 2017. 软硬互层边坡倾倒变形破坏特征及支护效果的大型离心机试验研究——以苗尾右岸坝前边坡为例[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学. 兰恒星, 张宁, 李郎平, 等. 2021. 川藏铁路可研阶段重大工程地质风险分析[J]. 工程地质学报, 29 (2): 326-341. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCDZ202102004.htm 李光. 2016. 下伏软层反倾岩质边坡动力响应特征物理模型试验-以罐滩滑坡为原型[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学. 廖少波, 肖华波, 刘云鹏. 2019. 基于正交数值试验的倾倒边坡稳定性影响因素分析[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 15 (S2): 1003-1008. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BASE2019S2067.htm 刘传正, 陈春利. 2020. 中国地质灾害防治成效与问题对策[J]. 工程地质学报, 28 (2): 375-383. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCDZ202002018.htm 刘海军. 2012. 皖南山区反倾板岩边坡倾倒变形机理研究[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学. 马昊, 黄达, 石林. 2020. 基于断距-层厚特征统计的反倾边坡S型破坏演化数值模拟[J]. 工程地质学报, 28 (6): 1160-1171. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCDZ202006002.htm 马昊. 2019. 层状岩质反倾边坡倾倒变形离心模型试验的数值模拟研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆大学. 孙闻博. 2018. 基于离散元的反倾层状岩质边坡倾倒变形分析[D]. 西安: 西安理工大学. 王飞, 唐辉明, 宁奕冰, 等. 2019. 基于演化过程的互层斜坡深层倾倒稳定性评价[J]. 地质科技情报, 38 (5): 186-194. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZKQ201905020.htm 谢良甫. 2015. 反倾层状岩质斜坡倾倒变形特征及演化机理研究[D]. 武汉: 中国地质大学. 张家明. 2020. 含软弱夹层岩质边坡稳定性研究现状及发展趋势[J]. 工程地质学报, 28 (3): 626-638. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCDZ202003020.htm 张社荣, 谭尧升, 王超, 等. 2014. 多层软弱夹层边坡岩体破坏机制与稳定性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 35 (6): 1695-1702. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201406028.htm 赵华, 李文龙, 卫俊杰, 等. 2018. 反倾边坡倾倒变形演化过程的模型试验研究[J]. 工程地质学报, 26 (3): 749-757. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCDZ201803022.htm 郑允, 陈从新, 刘婷婷, 等. 2015. 坡顶荷载作用下岩质边坡倾倒破坏分析[J]. 岩土力学, 36 (9): 2639-2658. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201509027.htm 郑允, 陈从新, 朱玺玺, 等. 2014. 地震作用下岩质边坡倾倒破坏分析[J]. 岩土力学, 35 (4): 1025-1040. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201404016.htm 周扬. 2020. 略阳菜籽坝反倾层状边坡倾倒变形破坏模式研究[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学. -
点击查看大图
图(7) / 表(7)
计量
- 文章访问数: 116
- HTML全文浏览量: 19
- PDF下载量: 47
- 被引次数: 0
