ISSN 1003-8035 CN 11-2852/P
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • CSCD收录期刊
  • Caj-cd规范获奖期刊
  • Scopus 收录期刊
  • DOAJ 收录期刊
  • GeoRef收录期刊
欢迎扫码关注“i环境微平台”

超大跨桥梁强震动力响应下岸坡稳定性分析

杜兆萌, 刘天翔, 程强, 雷航, 王丰

杜兆萌,刘天翔,程强,等. 超大跨桥梁强震动力响应下岸坡稳定性分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2025,36(2): 1-11. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202309031
引用本文: 杜兆萌,刘天翔,程强,等. 超大跨桥梁强震动力响应下岸坡稳定性分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2025,36(2): 1-11. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202309031
DU Zhaomeng,LIU Tianxiang,CHENG Qiang,et al. Analysis of bank slope stability under strong seismic response for super long span bridges[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2025,36(2): 1-11. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202309031
Citation: DU Zhaomeng,LIU Tianxiang,CHENG Qiang,et al. Analysis of bank slope stability under strong seismic response for super long span bridges[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2025,36(2): 1-11. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202309031

超大跨桥梁强震动力响应下岸坡稳定性分析

基金项目: 四川省交通运输科技项目(2023-A-02;2024-A-04);四川省科技计划资助(2022YFG0141);四川省公路规划勘察设计研究院有限公司科研项目(KYXM2021000049;KYXM2022000038)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    杜兆萌(1995—),女,山东东营人,地质资源与地质工程专业,硕士,工程师,主要从事地质灾害防治与特殊支挡结构设计方面的研究。E-mail:473453892@qq.com

    通讯作者:

    刘天翔(1980—),男,四川自贡人,地质工程专业,硕士,教授级高级工程师,主要从事公路地质灾害防治设计与监测预警技术方面的研究。E-mail:411495191@qq.com

  • 中图分类号: TU435

Analysis of bank slope stability under strong seismic response for super long span bridges

  • 摘要:

    在高烈度山区设计修建公路桥梁时,其中耦合多种不利条件的在强震作用下超大跨径桥梁高陡岸坡稳定性最为复杂,易形成滑移、碎屑流等岸坡失稳灾害。实际震害调查结果表明不规则地形对地震动力具有明显的放大作用,对边坡的稳定性和桥梁的安全性构成不利的影响,如何考虑复杂地形的地震动力放大效应具有重要的工程价值。以位于四川省凉山彝族自治州高烈度深切峡谷地段的主跨1200 m特大悬索桥岸坡为例,对此类超大跨径桥梁岸坡在强地震力作用下的基岩面地震危险性概率和失稳破坏模式机理进行研究,建立了含卸荷裂隙的三维坡体结构模型,采用动力时程分析方法给出了不同失稳破坏模式下岸坡上各特征点的峰值地震加速度并据此获得了修正的放大系数。基于修正的放大系数对坡体地震稳定性的拟静力计算方法进行改进,采用改进后的方法对该工点的稳定性进行了评估。结果表明:边坡遵循峰值地震水平加速度及放大系数地表最大,随着坡体深度的增大而递减,且递减速度减缓并趋于稳定的规律,且坡度变化率对此影响极大。坡度变化率大且地貌突出部位的地震响应极为强烈。大范围分布的碎块石土覆盖层、变坡率的地貌突出的浅表层、风化卸荷带内的表层风化碎裂岩体极易在地震作用下产生变形,应当加强防护。未考虑修正放大系数的地震工况计算结果偏于不安全,安全系数的计算结果减少了2%~6%。据此提出的一整套针对高烈度山区特大跨径桥梁岸坡的地质灾害风险评估方法和与考虑桥梁结构两水准抗震相适应的边坡稳定性计算方法及防护措施建议思路,为相关工程的研究与设计提供参考。

    Abstract:

    Designing and constructing highway bridges in high-intensity mountainous areas present significant challenges. The stability of high and steep bank slopes for large span bridges coupled with various unfavorable conditions under strong earthquakes is particularly complex, which is prone to formation of bank slope instability disasters such as sliding and debris flow. Investigations into earthquake damage reveal that irregular terrain has a significant amplification effect on earthquake dynamics, which has an adverse impact on the stability of slopes and the safety of bridges. Assessing the seismic dynamic amplification effect of complex terrain is of important engineering value. This study examines the bank slope of a 1200m-long suspension bridge located in the high-intensity, deep canyon region of the Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province. We conduct an in-depth analysis and research on the seismic hazard probability and instability failure mode mechanisms of the bedrock surface under strong seismic forces. A three-dimensional slope structure model with unloading cracks was developed. The peak seismic acceleration of each characteristic point on the bank slope under different instability failure modes was obtained using dynamic time-history analysis method and modified amplification coefficient was derived based on these findings. Improvements were made to the static calculation method for slope seismic stability using this modified coefficient. The improved method was used to evaluate the stability of the construction site. The results indicate that the slope's peak seismic horizontal acceleration and amplification coefficient are highest at the surface and decrease with increasing slope depth, with the rate of decrease slowing and stabilizing. The rate of slope change significantly impacts this response. The seismic response is exceptionally strong in areas with high slope change rates and prominent landforms. Widely distributed fragmented rock and soil cover layers, shallow surfaces with varying slope rates, and surface weathered fragmented rock masses within weathering unloading zones are prone to deformation under seismic action, and protection should be strengthened. The calculation results of seismic conditions without considering the correction of amplification factors are unsafe, with safety factor results decreasing by 2% to 6%. A complete set of geological hazard risk assessment methods, and slope stability calculation methods, and protective measures suitable for considering the two-level seismic resistance of bridge structures are proposed based on this for the bank slopes of ultra large span bridges in high intensity mountainous areas, providing a reference for the research and design of related engineering projects in high-intensity mountainous areas.

  • 2010年8月8日凌晨,舟曲县城北侧三眼峪沟和罗家峪沟同时暴发特大山洪泥石流,城区三分之一被淹,共造成1435人死亡,330人失踪,直接经济损失超过10亿元[1-2],给舟曲县城居民生命财产造成了巨大损失,也给当地生产生活带来严重困难。灾害引起了党中央、国务院、中央军委及全国人民的高度关注,启动国家二级救灾应急响应,同时批复专项资金进行治理。其中,重力式拦挡坝是舟曲泥石流治理中的最主要工程之一。

    周龙茂等[3]认为拦挡坝在泥石流治理中发挥着重要作用,但同时拦挡坝也是最易遭受破坏、失去防灾功能的泥石流防治构筑物,因此,在泥石流设计中,为了拦挡坝不被破坏,往往设计得很保守,王念秦等[4]提出这种设计容易造成两个极端现象:保守,造成资金浪费;冒进,防治工程失败。要做到既能保证拦挡坝安全,又能将投资最小化,就要求对泥石流拦挡坝抗冲击力验算方法提出新要求。传统的泥石流冲击力计算经验公式[5]只能通过大量试算表述结果,不能表述过程。而将三维有限元数值分析方法应用到泥石流拦挡坝稳定性验算中[6-7],能将过程和结果同时呈现,即通过分步加载的方法,逐步呈现拦挡坝的位移情况和抗冲击力过程中的破损情况。

    关于拦挡坝的数值模拟研究还比较少,本文将考虑损伤的混凝土本构模型与有限元计算方法相结合,对舟曲泥石流混凝土拦挡结构进行力学分析,最终确定了拦挡坝的抗冲击力合理区间,以期为泥石流治理工程的设计提供借鉴。

    杨东旭等[8]、许海亮等[9]、张睿骁等[10]认为冲击力是破坏防治工程构筑物的主要作用力之一,其大小与泥石流流量、流速、容重等有关。泥石流冲击力是泥石流防治工程设计的重要参数,分为流体整体冲击力和个别石块的冲击力两种,在设计中取两种计算结果较高者为设计依据。文章采用《泥石流灾害防治工程设计规范》(DZT 0239—2004)中的经验公式[5]作为数值计算结果的参考和验证。

    流体整体冲击力计算公式:

    $$f = K\frac{{{\gamma_C}}}{g}v_c^2$$ (1)

    式(1)中:f−冲击力/Pa;

    K−系数,取2.5;

    ${\gamma_C} $−泥石流重度/(t·m−3);

    g−重力加速度,取9.8 m·s−2

    vc−断面处泥石流流速(m·s−1)。

    个别石块的冲击力计算公式:

    $${F_b} = \sqrt {\frac{{48EJ{V^2}W}}{{g{L^3}}}} \cdot \sin \alpha $$ (2)

    式(2)中:Fb−泥石流大石块冲击力/(t·m−2);

    E−工程构件弹性模量/(t·m−2);

    J−工程构件界面中心轴的惯性矩/m4

    V−石块运动速度(m·s−1);

    W−石块重量/t;

    L−构件长度/m;

    α−石块运动方向与构件受力面的夹角/(°)。

    泥石流具体参数和计算结果见表1,编号和《甘肃省舟曲县三眼峪沟泥石流灾害设计报告》[1]中保持一致。

    表  1  泥石流冲击力计算参数及结果
    Table  1.  Debris flow impact calculation parameters and results
    编号${\gamma _c}$/(t·m−3${v_c}$/(m·s−1$L$/m$W$/t$V$/(m·s−1$\sin \alpha $$E$/(t·m−2$J$/m4$f$/(t·m−2${F_b}$/(t·m−2
    大1号坝2.096.565.516210.550.9462.8274.6322.497.14
    大2号坝2.096.602.8817.530.9462.8274.6322.767.34
    大3号坝2.036.618.6259.213.200.9462.8216.0022.1719.95
    大4号坝2.038.674.394.59.330.9462.8421.8838.1519.62
    小2号坝2.036.563.183.77.920.9462.8421.8821.844.28
    小3号坝2.139.865.8129.610.840.9462.8274.6351.778.98
    小4号坝2.135.492.875.67.530.9462.8421.8816.0514.17
    小6号坝2.138.124.7121.59.761.0002.8512.0035.1137.01
    主1号坝2.136.5311.2361.815.060.9462.8421.8822.7144.35
    主2号坝2.136.167.5234.912.320.9462.8343.0020.2112.44
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    计算区域按地质资料分高程、分区域模拟。模型向上游及下游分别延伸至坝体厚度的2倍,模型高度方向自坝基向下延伸坝体垂直部分的2倍。以大2号坝为例进行数值模拟,砼坝体和地基土数值分析具体参数见表2

    分析中将泥石流流体的冲击力P简化为静力加载到坝体侧面,计算坝体的极限抗冲击能力,简化计算力学模型如图1所示。

    表  2  混凝土坝和地基碎石土参数
    Table  2.  Concrete dam and gravel soil parameter
    名称坝体沟床碎石土
    弹性模量/GPa泊松比损伤阈值拉压强度比弹性模量/MPa泊松比黏聚力/kPa内摩擦角/(°)剪胀角/(°)
    取值24.00.22×10−40.152400.25.04040
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    图  1  简化力学模型示意图
    Figure  1.  Mechanical model of concrete dam

    数值模拟使用有限元软件ABAQUS进行计算分析。冯帅等[11]认为数值计算出的泥石流的极限抗冲压力大于经验公式计算出的泥石流整体冲击压力。因此,本文分别按泥石流流体高度h=H/2坝高(工况1)及h=H(工况2)两种工况进行分析,将数值计算出的抗冲击力限定在一合理区间。计算中加载每一荷载增量后均计算至收敛,并记录坝体的最大位移。加载至破坏时(计算不收敛,坝体位移不断增大)的压力P与坝体最大位移曲线由倾斜直线变为水平线,坝体所能承受的最大冲击力Pu可由压力P与坝体最大位移曲线水平段的和坐标求出。应力以拉为正,以压为负,应力的单位为Pa,长度单位为m,位移单位为mm,其他单位均采用国际单位制。具体模型边界和网格划分图2所示。

    图  2  模型边界和网格划分
    Figure  2.  Model boundary and meshing

    大坝按泥石流冲击高度h=H/2坝高计算,在拦挡坝的一侧施加泥石流冲击力,荷载增量取值100 kPa,每加一次荷载,计算至收敛,并且记录一次坝体的最大位移;一直持续加载至破坏时,即计算不收敛且坝体位移不断增大时停止计算。

    周勇等[12]采用结构动力学的方法,建立了泥石流冲击荷载与拦挡坝的动力方程,提出拦挡坝的坝顶处有最大的位移,为本次工程力学计算提供了一种思路。将泥石流冲击力与相应荷载下坝体位移进行统计,形成图3所示冲击力与坝体最大位移关系曲线,会发现坝体水平位移随着拦挡坝冲击力增大呈对数曲线递增,泥石流流体高度h=H/2工况条件下施加的最大冲击力Pu=3500 kPa(357.14 t/m2)。

    图  3  冲击力与坝体最大位移曲线(h=H/2)
    Figure  3.  Pressure and the maximum dam displacement curve(h=H/2)

    坝体损毁过程如图4所示,冲击力达到800 kPa(水平位移1 mm)时坝体开始出现初始损伤;冲击力达到1100 kPa(水平位移1.4 mm)时两侧坝肩和基础局部都出现较明显损伤;冲击力达到1400 kPa时(水平位移2 mm),泄水孔和泄水涵洞边缘出现局部损伤;冲击力达到2700 kPa(水平位移4.8 mm)时,基础出现大面积损伤,沿正面泄水涵洞和泄水孔形成纵向损伤;冲击力达到3200 kPa(水平位移7.2 mm)时,坝肩、基础及坝体正中损伤贯通,损伤区呈“W”型,坝体已基本失去功能,在工程实际应用中已达到破坏极限;冲击力达到3500 kPa时,坝体大面积损伤,超过坝体总面积的2/3,水平位移高达14 mm,整体性降低或消失,这只是一种模拟现象,在工程实际应用中泥石流物质沿坝体破坏处流通,坝体已不存在整体位移现象。

    图  4  不同泥石流冲击力下拦挡坝的损伤情况(h=H/2)
    Figure  4.  Damage of piles under different impact force of debris flow(h=H/2)

    大坝按泥石流冲击高度h=H坝高计算,荷载增量取值125 kPa,每加一次荷载,计算至收敛,同时记录一次坝体的最大位移,将泥石流冲击力与相应荷载下坝体位移进行统计,形成图5所示冲击力与坝体最大位移关系曲线,会发现坝体水平位移随着拦挡坝冲击力增大也呈对数曲线递增,泥石流流体高度h=H工况条件下施加的最大冲击力Pu=2490 kPa(254.08 t/m2)。

    图  5  冲击力与坝体最大位移曲线(h=H
    Figure  5.  Pressure and the maximum dam displacement curve(h=H

    坝体损毁过程如图6所示,冲击力达到375 kPa(水平位移1.7 mm)时坝体开始出现初始损伤;冲击力达到500 kPa(水平位移2.3 mm)时两侧坝肩和基础局部都出现较明显损伤;冲击力达到1250 kPa(水平位移6.6 mm)时,泄水孔和泄水涵洞边缘出现局部损伤;冲击力达到1500 kPa(水平位移8.4 mm)时,基础出现局部损伤,沿正面泄水涵洞和泄水孔形成纵向损伤,两侧坝肩损伤较严重;冲击力达到2000 kPa(水平位移14.8 mm)时,严重损伤区呈“W”型,坝肩、基础和坝体中心部位损伤基本贯通,坝体已基本失去功能,在工程实际应用中已达到破坏极限;冲击力达到2490 kPa时,坝体大面积损伤,超过坝体总量的2/3,水平位移高达40.4 mm,整体性降低或消失,这也只是一种模拟现象,在工程实际应用中泥石流物质沿坝体破坏处流通,坝体已不存在整体位移。

    图  6  不同泥石流冲击力下拦挡坝的损伤情况(h=H
    Figure  6.  Damage of piles under different impact force of debris flow(h=H

    同样方法计算三眼峪及各支沟泥石流重力式拦挡工程冲击力,得到表3,结合表1可以看出,泥石流经验公式计算的单宽冲击力均小于工况1数值模拟验算结果,均大于工况2数值模拟验算结果,与工况1和2的平均值接近。2012年建成至今,大部分坝体库容淤积过半,部分甚至已淤满,说明拦挡坝经受住了各种泥石流冲击破坏的考验。

    表  3  重力坝冲击力数值模拟验算结果对比表(单位:t/m2
    Table  3.  Comparison of results of numerical simulation of impact of gravity dam (unit: t/m2)
    编号经验公式
    计算冲击力
    h=H/2
    最大冲击力
    h=H
    最大冲击力
    计算平均值
    大1号坝22.4927.0017.5522.28
    大2号坝22.7627.3617.7822.57
    大3号坝22.1726.6417.3221.98
    大4号坝38.1545.8429.8037.82
    小2号坝21.8426.2817.0821.68
    小3号坝51.7762.1640.4051.28
    小4号坝16.0519.3212.5615.94
    小6号坝37.0144.5228.9436.73
    主1号坝44.3553.2834.6343.96
    主2号坝20.2124.3615.8320.10
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    将2种工况进行比较,工况1的冲击力达到800 kPa时坝体开始出现初始损伤,最大冲击力为3500 kPa,而工况2的冲击力达到375 kPa时桩体开始出现初始损伤,最大冲击力为2490 kPa。说明冲击高度对坝体的影响较大,随高度增加,达到初损的冲击力荷载几乎成倍数减少,而最大冲击力也减少1000 kPa。这说明在拦挡坝设计中泄水涵洞和泄水孔的预留很重要,为减少拦挡坝的冲击破坏,应尽量选择低坝,同时在不影响坝体安全和停淤功能的基础上,应多布设泄水涵洞和泄水孔,降低坝前壅水位,最大可能避免或减少高水位过流。

    拦挡坝的损伤从两侧坝肩开始,再到拦挡坝中间部位的泄水涵洞及泄水孔边缘,然后到基础,最后坝肩、中间部位和基础形成“W”型的贯通破坏,其破损部位按先后顺序依次为“坝肩—泄水涵洞及泄水孔—基础—“W”型贯通”4个过程。设计时应重点考虑这几处薄弱环节,要相应的进行专门的加固处理。

    从安全和经济方面考虑,在拦挡坝设计中冲击力的考虑应该取工况1和工况2之间值较合理,工况1存在风险,工况2偏保守,而工况1和2的中间值接近经验公式计算冲击力。从表3中可知,三眼峪设计中的冲击力选择也是工况1和2的平均值,从而保障了拦挡坝的安全运行。

    由于真实模拟泥石流重力式拦挡坝的室内大型实验难度比较大,野外测定随机性太大,故本文采用数值模拟的方式来分析三眼峪沟拦挡坝的受力情况。结果表明数值模拟对分析问题有一定的指导意义,可以和现有的泥石流设计理论结合,为以后工程设计提供安全对比,但是不能代替物理实验和理论计算。

    (1)本文通过有限元软件ABAQUS进行拦挡坝数值模拟计算和分析,比较2种工况条件发现:随着泥石流冲击高度增加,达到初损的冲击力荷载成倍数减少,而最大冲击力也减少1000 kPa;拦挡坝的损伤从两侧坝肩开始,再到拦挡坝中间部位的泄水涵洞及泄水孔边缘,形成“W”型的贯通破坏。

    (2)通过与经验公式计算冲击力比较,发现拦挡坝设计中冲击力选择工况1和2的平均值较合理,可以为工程设计提供安全对比。

  • 图  1   桥梁及岸坡地貌图

    Figure  1.   Landscape map of bridge and riverbank slopes

    图  2   风化卸荷变形区岩芯特征

    Figure  2.   Characteristics of rock core in weathering and unloading deformation zone

    图  3   风化卸荷裂隙特征

    Figure  3.   characteristics of weathering unloading crack

    图  4   地震区带划分方案图

    Figure  4.   Diagram of seismic zone division plan

    图  5   计算模型分层划分和单元划分

    Figure  5.   Calculation model and unit division

    图  6   计算模型与监测点位置

    Figure  6.   Calculation model and monitoring point location

    图  7   水平方向地震动时程

    Figure  7.   Time history of horizontal ground motion

    图  8   监测点峰值地震水平加速度折线图

    Figure  8.   Peak Seismic Horizontal Acceleration at Monitoring Points

    图  9   西昌岸监测点5地震水平加速度时程曲线

    Figure  9.   Seismic horizontal acceleration time history curve of monitoring point 5 on Xichang bank

    图  10   香格里拉岸监测点5地震水平加速度时程曲线

    Figure  10.   Seismic horizontal acceleration time history curve of monitoring point 5 on Xianggelila bank

    图  11   西昌岸地质及桥梁剖面图

    Figure  11.   Geological and bridge profile of Xichang bank

    图  12   香格里拉岸地质及桥梁剖面图

    Figure  12.   Geological and bridge profile of Xianggelila bank

    图  13   西昌岸E1地震工况总位移图

    Figure  13.   Total displacement diagram of Xichang bank under E1 earthquake condition

    图  14   西昌岸E2地震工况总位移图

    Figure  14.   Total displacement diagram of Xichang bank under E2 earthquake condition

    图  15   香格里拉岸E1地震工况总位移图

    Figure  15.   Total displacement diagram of Xianggelila bank under E1 earthquake condition

    图  16   香格里拉岸E2地震工况总位移图

    Figure  16.   Total displacement diagram of Xianggelila bank under E2 earthquake condition

    图  17   西昌岸E1地震工况折减至极限状态的剪应变增量

    Figure  17.   Shear strain increment of Xichang bank under E1 earthquake condition

    图  18   西昌岸E2地震工况折减至极限状态的剪应变增量

    Figure  18.   Shear strain increment of Xichang bank under E2 earthquake condition

    图  19   香格里拉岸E1工况折减至极限状态剪应变增量

    Figure  19.   Shear strain increment and stability coefficient of Xianggelila bank under E1 earthquake condition

    图  20   香格里拉岸E2工况折减至极限状态的剪应变增量

    Figure  20.   Shear strain increment and stability coefficient of Xianggelila bank under E2 earthquake condition

    表  1   岩土体的物理力学参数

    Table  1   Physical and mechanical parameters of rock and soil

    区域 弹模
    /MPa
    泊松比 黏聚力/kPa 内摩擦角/(°) 容重/(kN·m−3
    天然 暴雨 天然 暴雨 天然 暴雨
    碎块石土 60 0.32 15 13 27 24 20 21
    卸荷带 300 0.28 120 108 42.2 38.0 24 25
    中风化岩 800 0.27 507 456. 49.9 44.9 26.5 27
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2   监测点峰值地震水平加速度和放大系数ξ

    Table  2   Peak Seismic Horizontal Acceleration and Amplification Factor of Monitoring Points

    编号 西昌岸 香格里拉岸
    峰值地震水平加速度 ξ 峰值地震水平加速度 ξ
    1 18.779 2.61 16.249 2.26
    2 26.536 3.69 19.068 1.40
    3 21.003 2.92 14.210 1.28
    4 18.763 2.61 15.963 2.22
    5 12.581 1.75 43.467 6.04
    6 19.471 2.71 18.124 2.52
    7 18.848 2.61 13.097 1.82
    8 16.650 2.32 14.919 2.07
    9 12.434 1.80 41.169 5.72
    10 15.802 2.20 16.488 2.29
    11 13.193 1.83 12.499 1.74
    12 11.940 1.66 14.474 2.01
    13 15.797 2.20 10.257 1.43
    14 12.253 1.70 12.484 1.76
    15 10.975 1.53 9.688 1.35
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3   考虑修正放大系数下不同工况边坡FS及稳定状态

    Table  3   FS and stable state of various conditions with considering the correction amplification factor

    岸坡 天然工况 暴雨工况 E1地震 E2地震
    FS 状态 FS 状态 FS 状态 FS 状态
    西昌 1.35 稳定 1.26 稳定 1.13 稳定 0.97 失稳
    香格里拉 1.26 稳定 1.12 稳定 1.06 基本稳定 0.98 失稳
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4   未考虑修正放大系数下地震工况的FS及稳定状态

    Table  4   FS and stable state of seismic conditions without considering the correction amplification factor

    岸坡 E1地震 E2地震
    FS 状态 FS 状态
    西昌 1.15 稳定 0.99 失稳
    香格里拉 1.11 稳定 1.04 欠稳定
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 彭建兵,崔鹏,庄建琦. 川藏铁路对工程地质提出的挑战[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2020,39(12):2377 − 2389. [PENG Jianbing,CUI Peng,ZHUANG Jianqi. Challenges to engineering geology of Sichuan—Tibet railway[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2020,39(12):2377 − 2389. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    PENG Jianbing, CUI Peng, ZHUANG Jianqi. Challenges to engineering geology of Sichuan—Tibet railway[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2020, 39(12): 2377 − 2389. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [2] 袁进科,陈杰. 汶川地震公路边坡灾害分析及震后边坡灾害发育特点[J]. 公路,2020,65(5):26 − 33. [YUAN Jinke,CHEN Jie. Analysis of highway slope disaster in Wenchuan earthquake and its development characteristics after earthquake[J]. Highway,2020,65(5):26 − 33. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    YUAN Jinke, CHEN Jie. Analysis of highway slope disaster in Wenchuan earthquake and its development characteristics after earthquake[J]. Highway, 2020, 65(5): 26 − 33. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [3] 张伯艳,王璨,李德玉,等. 地震作用下水利水电工程边坡稳定分析研究进展[J]. 中国水利水电科学研究院学报,2018,16(3):168 − 178. [ZHANG Boyan,WANG Can,LI Deyu,et al. The research progress on seismic stability analysis of slopes in water conservancy and hydropower projects[J]. Journal of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research,2018,16(3):168 − 178. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    ZHANG Boyan, WANG Can, LI Deyu, et al. The research progress on seismic stability analysis of slopes in water conservancy and hydropower projects[J]. Journal of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, 2018, 16(3): 168 − 178. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [4] 郭延辉,杨溢,高才坤,等. 云南鲁甸地震红石岩堰塞湖右岸特高边坡综合监测及变形特征分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2020,31(6):30 − 37. [GUO Yanhui,YANG Yi,GAO Caikun,et al. Comprehensive monitoring and deformation analysis of extra high slope on the right bank of Hongshiyan dammed lake in Ludian Earthquake[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2020,31(6):30 − 37. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    GUO Yanhui, YANG Yi, GAO Caikun, et al. Comprehensive monitoring and deformation analysis of extra high slope on the right bank of Hongshiyan dammed lake in Ludian Earthquake[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2020, 31(6): 30 − 37. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [5] 胡爱国,周伟. 地震与强降雨作用下堆积体滑坡变形破坏机理及防治方案分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2022,33(1):27 − 34. [HU Aiguo,ZHOU Wei. Deformation and failure mechanism and analysis on prevention measures of colluction landslide under earthquake and heavy rainfall[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2022,33(1):27 − 34. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    HU Aiguo, ZHOU Wei. Deformation and failure mechanism and analysis on prevention measures of colluction landslide under earthquake and heavy rainfall[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2022, 33(1): 27 − 34. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [6] 周洪福,冯治国,石胜伟,等. 川藏铁路某特大桥成都侧岸坡工程地质特征及稳定性评价[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2021,48(5):112 − 119. [ZHOU Hongfu,FENG Zhiguo,SHI Shengwei,et al. Slope engineering geology characteristics and stability evaluation of a grand bridge to Chengdu bank on the Sichuan-Tibet Railway[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology,2021,48(5):112 − 119. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    ZHOU Hongfu, FENG Zhiguo, SHI Shengwei, et al. Slope engineering geology characteristics and stability evaluation of a grand bridge to Chengdu bank on the Sichuan-Tibet Railway[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2021, 48(5): 112 − 119. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [7] 刘天翔,杜兆萌,程强,等. 红层软岩高边坡的时效变形特性[J]. 科学技术与工程,2020,20(27):11315 − 11322. [LIU Tianxiang,DU Zhaomeng,CHENG Qiang,et al. Time-dependent deformation characteristics of high slope in red layer soft rock[J]. Science Technology and Engineering,2020,20(27):11315 − 11322. (in Chinese with English abstract)] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2020.27.050

    LIU Tianxiang, DU Zhaomeng, CHENG Qiang, et al. Time-dependent deformation characteristics of high slope in red layer soft rock[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2020, 20(27): 11315 − 11322. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2020.27.050

    [8] 陈廷君,肖世国,程强,等. 泸定大渡河桥康定岸重力锚边坡长期变形与稳定性分析[J]. 工程地质学报,2019,27(3):632 − 639. [CHEN Tingjun,XIAO Shiguo,CHENG Qiang,et al. Long-term deformation and stability analysis of gravity anchorage slope on Kangding bank of Dadu River bridge in Luding[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,2019,27(3):632 − 639. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    CHEN Tingjun, XIAO Shiguo, CHENG Qiang, et al. Long-term deformation and stability analysis of gravity anchorage slope on Kangding bank of Dadu River bridge in Luding[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2019, 27(3): 632 − 639. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [9] 郭鸿俊,姜清辉,孙金山. 大岗山水电站右岸高边坡加固方案优化研究[J]. 人民长江,2012,43(15):16 − 19. [GUO Hongjun,JIANG Qinghui,SUN Jinshan. Optimization for reinforcement plan of right-bank high slope of Dagangshan Hydropower Station[J]. Yangtze River,2012,43(15):16 − 19. (in Chinese with English abstract)] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4179.2012.15.005

    GUO Hongjun, JIANG Qinghui, SUN Jinshan. Optimization for reinforcement plan of right-bank high slope of Dagangshan Hydropower Station[J]. Yangtze River, 2012, 43(15): 16 − 19. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4179.2012.15.005

    [10] 张泽鹏,朱凤贤,黄放军,等. 复杂地质条件下高边坡加固设计与综合治理研究——以梅河高速公路某高边坡治理为例[J]. 中山大学学报(自然科学版),2006,45(4):44 − 48. [ZHANG Zepeng,ZHU Fengxian,HUANG Fangjun,et al. Research on reinforcement design and comprehensive improvement for high slopes under complicated geological conditions[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni,2006,45(4):44 − 48. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    ZHANG Zepeng, ZHU Fengxian, HUANG Fangjun, et al. Research on reinforcement design and comprehensive improvement for high slopes under complicated geological conditions[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni, 2006, 45(4): 44 − 48. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [11] 张江伟,李小军. 地震作用下边坡稳定性分析方法[J]. 地震学报,2015,37(1):180 − 191. [ZHANG Jiangwei,LI Xiaojun. A review on the stability analysis methods of slope under seismic loading[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica,2015,37(1):180 − 191. (in Chinese with English abstract)] DOI: 10.11939/j.issn:0253-3782.2015.01.016

    ZHANG Jiangwei, LI Xiaojun. A review on the stability analysis methods of slope under seismic loading[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 2015, 37(1): 180 − 191. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.11939/j.issn:0253-3782.2015.01.016

    [12] 崔玉龙,刘爱娟. 区域边坡地震危险性评价理论研究进展[J]. 地震工程学报,2022,44(3):518 − 526. [CUI Yulong,LIU Aijuan. Advances in the theory of seismic hazard assessment of regional slopes[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal,2022,44(3):518 − 526. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    CUI Yulong, LIU Aijuan. Advances in the theory of seismic hazard assessment of regional slopes[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2022, 44(3): 518 − 526. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [13] 李亮,褚雪松,庞峰,等. 地震边坡稳定性分析的拟静力方法适用性探讨[J]. 世界地震工程,2012,28(2):57 − 63. [LI Liang,CHU Xuesong,PANG Feng,et al. Discussion on suitability of pseudo-static method in seismic slope stability analysis[J]. World Earthquake Engineering,2012,28(2):57 − 63. (in Chinese with English abstract)] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6069.2012.02.010

    LI Liang, CHU Xuesong, PANG Feng, et al. Discussion on suitability of pseudo-static method in seismic slope stability analysis[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2012, 28(2): 57 − 63. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6069.2012.02.010

    [14] 郑颖人,叶海林,肖强,等. 基于全动力分析法的地震边坡与隧道稳定性分析[J]. 防灾减灾工程学报,2010,30(增刊1):279 − 285. [ZHENG Yingren,YE Hailin,XIAO Qiang,et al. Stability analysis of earthquake slope and tunnel based on full dynamic analysis method[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering,2010,30(Sup 1):279 − 285. (in Chinese)]

    ZHENG Yingren, YE Hailin, XIAO Qiang, et al. Stability analysis of earthquake slope and tunnel based on full dynamic analysis method[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 2010, 30(Sup 1): 279 − 285. (in Chinese)

    [15] 张迎宾,柳静,唐云波,等. 考虑边坡地形效应的地震动力响应分析[J]. 地震工程学报,2021,43(1):142 − 153. [ZHANG Yingbin,LIU Jing,TANG Yunbo,et al. Dynamic response analysis of seismic slopes considering topographic effect[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal,2021,43(1):142 − 153. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    ZHANG Yingbin, LIU Jing, TANG Yunbo, et al. Dynamic response analysis of seismic slopes considering topographic effect[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2021, 43(1): 142 − 153. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [16] 王来贵,向丽,赵娜,等. 地震作用下顺倾多弱层岩质边坡动力响应[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(6):18 − 25. [WANG Laigui,XIANG Li,ZHAO Na,et al. Dynamic response of down-dip multi-weak-layer rock slope under earthquake[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(6):18 − 25. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    WANG Laigui, XIANG Li, ZHAO Na, et al. Dynamic response of down-dip multi-weak-layer rock slope under earthquake[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2021, 32(6): 18 − 25. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [17] 林峻岑,严松宏,孙纬宇,等. 三向地震作用下错距岩质边坡共振特性研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2023,50(2):95 − 102. [LIN Juncen,YAN Songhong,SUN Weiyu,et al. A study of the resonance characteristics of a staggered rock slope under the tri-dimension earthquake wave[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology,2023,50(2):95 − 102. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    LIN Juncen, YAN Songhong, SUN Weiyu, et al. A study of the resonance characteristics of a staggered rock slope under the tri-dimension earthquake wave[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2023, 50(2): 95 − 102. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [18] 李郑梁,李建春,刘波,等. 浅切割的高山峡谷复杂地形的地震动放大效应研究[J]. 工程地质学报,2021,29(1):137 − 150. [LI Zhengliang,LI Jianchun,LIU Bo,et al. Seismic motion amplification effect of shallow-cutting hill-canyon composite topography[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,2021,29(1):137 − 150. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    LI Zhengliang, LI Jianchun, LIU Bo, et al. Seismic motion amplification effect of shallow-cutting hill-canyon composite topography[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2021, 29(1): 137 − 150. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [19] 孙强强,薄景山,孙有为,等. 隧道结构地震反应分析研究现状[J]. 世界地震工程,2016,32(2):159 − 169. [SUN Qiangqiang,BO Jingshan,SUN Youwei,et al. A state-of-the-art review of seismic response analysis of tunnels[J]. World Earthquake Engineering,2016,32(2):159 − 169. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    SUN Qiangqiang, BO Jingshan, SUN Youwei, et al. A state-of-the-art review of seismic response analysis of tunnels[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 32(2): 159 − 169. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [20] 邓鹏. 单体边坡地形的地震动力响应及其放大效应的数值分析[J]. 地震学报,2020,42(3):349 − 361. [DENG Peng. Numerical parametric study of seismic dynamic response and amplification effects of slope topography[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica,2020,42(3):349 − 361. (in Chinese with English abstract)] DOI: 10.11939/jass.20190133

    DENG Peng. Numerical parametric study of seismic dynamic response and amplification effects of slope topography[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 2020, 42(3): 349 − 361. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.11939/jass.20190133

    [21] 门妮,孙有为,薄景山,等. 地震作用下边坡动力响应及影响因素研究[J]. 世界地震工程,2017,33(3):110 − 120. [MEN Ni,SUN Youwei,BO Jingshan,et al. Study on dynamic response and influence factors of slope under earthquake[J]. World Earthquake Engineering,2017,33(3):110 − 120. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    MEN Ni, SUN Youwei, BO Jingshan, et al. Study on dynamic response and influence factors of slope under earthquake[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 33(3): 110 − 120. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [22] 张江伟,周爱红,迟明杰,等. 边坡地震响应数值模拟中最优边界范围研究[J]. 防灾减灾工程学报,2022,42(1):34 − 41. [ZHANG Jiangwei,ZHOU Aihong,CHI Mingjie,et al. Research on boundary range in seismic response simulation of slope[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering,2022,42(1):34 − 41. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    ZHANG Jiangwei, ZHOU Aihong, CHI Mingjie, et al. Research on boundary range in seismic response simulation of slope[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 2022, 42(1): 34 − 41. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [23] 郑颖人,叶海林,黄润秋,等. 边坡地震稳定性分析探讨[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,2010,30(2):173 − 180. [ZHENG Yingren,YE Hailin,HUANG Runqiu,et al. Study on the seismic stability analysis of a slope[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,2010,30(2):173 − 180. (in Chinese with English abstract)]

    ZHENG Yingren, YE Hailin, HUANG Runqiu, et al. Study on the seismic stability analysis of a slope[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2010, 30(2): 173 − 180. (in Chinese with English abstract)

  • 期刊类型引用(26)

    1. 李超然,袁广祥. 甘肃省宕昌县地质灾害易发性评价. 地质灾害与环境保护. 2025(01): 21-25 . 百度学术
    2. 兰盈盈,郭昶成,朱云福. 地质灾害易发性评价方法综述. 地质与资源. 2024(01): 65-73 . 百度学术
    3. 杨晶晶,肖玉,安泉,刘浩,公斌. 黔东北地区地质灾害时空分布规律及孕灾地质环境研究. 中国煤炭地质. 2024(02): 64-68 . 百度学术
    4. 李晓玮,刘翠娜. 基于AHP法山区公路边坡稳定性评价及危害性分析. 河北地质大学学报. 2024(02): 61-65+134 . 百度学术
    5. 南赟,翟淑花,李岩,曹颖,罗守敬,王云涛,郭学飞. 北京地区“23·7”特大暴雨型地质灾害特征及预警成效分析. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2024(02): 66-73 . 本站查看
    6. 曾欣,黄梦妮,胡毓灵,邓新林,谢倩雯. 株洲市地质灾害特征与降雨量的关系. 气象研究与应用. 2024(01): 83-89 . 百度学术
    7. 唐朝. 基于ArcGIS的当涂县地质灾害风险调查与评价. 现代矿业. 2024(04): 187-190+196 . 百度学术
    8. 蔡佳明. 北京东部山区地质灾害危险性评价. 地质灾害与环境保护. 2024(02): 49-55 . 百度学术
    9. 李晓玮. 北京北宫镇大灰厂路牵引式岩质滑坡勘查及防治对策. 城市地质. 2024(02): 139-148 . 百度学术
    10. 赵丹凝,焦润成,杨春. “23·7”强降雨对北京西山曹家坊泥石流隐患易发性影响. 城市地质. 2024(03): 353-364 . 百度学术
    11. 尹展,郝玉军,卜鹏,杨艳绪. 湘南中低山区滑坡孕灾因子分析及易发性评价——以江华县为例. 矿产勘查. 2024(10): 1878-1884 . 百度学术
    12. 李晓玮,郑晓钰,史昕宇. 北京西部采空区初勘及场地适宜性评价. 防灾减灾学报. 2024(04): 7-12 . 百度学术
    13. 支泽民,刘峰贵,周强,夏兴生,陈琼. 基于流域单元的地质灾害易发性评价——以西藏昌都市为例. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2023(01): 139-150 . 本站查看
    14. 王涛,李鹏洋,逯兴娅,苏生瑞,董永超. 陕西省韩城市地质灾害易发性评价. 甘肃科学学报. 2023(02): 55-62 . 百度学术
    15. 张群,冯辉,贾三满,张沁瑞,贾磊. 基于CF与Logistic回归模型耦合的地质灾害易发性评价——以北京市大清河流域生态涵养区为例. 城市地质. 2023(01): 17-25 . 百度学术
    16. 罗琳,刘雄,翁建,王锦阳,楼雄标. 某乡镇地质灾害风险评价. 科技通报. 2023(04): 93-102 . 百度学术
    17. 孙佩,杨良哲,康全国,张驰,尹伟,周凌云,易洁伟,王雯雯. 一般调查区地质灾害易发性评价——以咸丰县为例. 资源信息与工程. 2023(04): 95-98 . 百度学术
    18. 叶泽宇,徐尚智,刘欢欢,于家烁,翟淑花,冒建. 基于信息量与逻辑回归耦合模型的北京西山崩塌易发性评价. 城市地质. 2023(03): 9-15 . 百度学术
    19. 阳清青,余秋兵,张廷斌,易桂花,张恺. 基于GDIV模型的大渡河中游地区滑坡危险性评价与区划. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2023(05): 130-140 . 本站查看
    20. 王海芝,曾庆利,许冰,胡福根,于淼. 北京“7·21”特大暴雨诱发的地质灾害类型及其特征分析. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2022(02): 125-132 . 本站查看
    21. 焦伟之,张明,谢鑫鹏,李成文,刘涛,庞海松. 基于GIS与加权信息量模型的城镇地质灾害易发性评价——以大新镇为例. 安全与环境工程. 2022(04): 119-128 . 百度学术
    22. 简鹏,李文彦,张治家,时伟,党发宁,郭红东,李松. 基于多因素加权指数和法的区域地质灾害易发性评价研究——以麦积区为例. 甘肃地质. 2022(03): 63-72 . 百度学术
    23. 白光顺,杨雪梅,朱杰勇,张世涛,祝传兵,康晓波,孙滨,周琰嵩. 基于证据权法的昆明五华区地质灾害易发性评价. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2022(05): 128-138 . 本站查看
    24. 庄卓涵. 广州北部山区斜坡类地质灾害致灾机理及易发性分析——以广州从化良口—吕田一带为例. 地下水. 2022(06): 158-161 . 百度学术
    25. 王小东,罗园,付景保. 基于GIS的白龙江引水工程水源区地质灾害易发性评价. 南水北调与水利科技(中英文). 2022(06): 1231-1239 . 百度学术
    26. 郭富赟,宋晓玲,刘明霞. 黄河流域甘肃段地质灾害发育特征. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2021(05): 130-136 . 本站查看

    其他类型引用(6)

图(20)  /  表(4)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  60
  • HTML全文浏览量:  16
  • PDF下载量:  1
  • 被引次数: 32
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2023-09-20
  • 修回日期:  2024-03-04
  • 录用日期:  2024-04-22
  • 网络出版日期:  2024-06-17

目录

/

返回文章
返回