三维边坡稳定性分析中最小安全系数的选取

T. Stark, D. G. Ruffing
{"title":"三维边坡稳定性分析中最小安全系数的选取","authors":"T. Stark, D. G. Ruffing","doi":"10.1061/9780784480700.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Geotechnical engineers understand there is uncertainty and risk in the input parameters for slope stability analyses and within the analysis methodologies themselves. Decades of research and inverse analyses of slope failures have resulted in widespread acceptance of certain factors of safety (FS) in typical situations, e.g., a static two-dimensional (2D) factor of safety of 1.3 is often used for temporary or low risk slopes and 1.5 for permanent slopes. However, these FSs are not appropriate for use with three-dimensional (3D) analyses because 3D analyses account for additional shear resistance that is generated along the sides of the slide mass. The contribution of the additional shear resistance can be significant in shallow slide masses or for translational slide masses with a width to height ratio less than six, resulting in calculated values of 3D FS that are greater than the calculated 2D FS. To achieve the same level of safety or risk as a static 2D FS of 1.3 or 1.5, the user must use a greater minimum FS for 3D analyses. This paper presents methods for calculating a suitable minimum 3D FS to achieve a similar level of safety or risk as a minimum 2D FS, such as 1.3 or 1.5, would afford.","PeriodicalId":360791,"journal":{"name":"Geotechnical special publication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selecting Minimum Factors of Safety for 3D Slope Stability Analyses\",\"authors\":\"T. Stark, D. G. Ruffing\",\"doi\":\"10.1061/9780784480700.025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Geotechnical engineers understand there is uncertainty and risk in the input parameters for slope stability analyses and within the analysis methodologies themselves. Decades of research and inverse analyses of slope failures have resulted in widespread acceptance of certain factors of safety (FS) in typical situations, e.g., a static two-dimensional (2D) factor of safety of 1.3 is often used for temporary or low risk slopes and 1.5 for permanent slopes. However, these FSs are not appropriate for use with three-dimensional (3D) analyses because 3D analyses account for additional shear resistance that is generated along the sides of the slide mass. The contribution of the additional shear resistance can be significant in shallow slide masses or for translational slide masses with a width to height ratio less than six, resulting in calculated values of 3D FS that are greater than the calculated 2D FS. To achieve the same level of safety or risk as a static 2D FS of 1.3 or 1.5, the user must use a greater minimum FS for 3D analyses. This paper presents methods for calculating a suitable minimum 3D FS to achieve a similar level of safety or risk as a minimum 2D FS, such as 1.3 or 1.5, would afford.\",\"PeriodicalId\":360791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geotechnical special publication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geotechnical special publication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480700.025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geotechnical special publication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480700.025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

岩土工程师明白,边坡稳定性分析的输入参数和分析方法本身存在不确定性和风险。数十年来对边坡破坏的研究和反分析已经导致在典型情况下广泛接受某些安全系数(FS),例如,静态二维安全系数(2D)通常用于临时或低风险边坡,1.5用于永久边坡。然而,这些FSs不适合用于三维(3D)分析,因为3D分析考虑了沿滑动质量侧面产生的额外剪切阻力。在较浅的滑动体或宽度与高度之比小于6的平移滑动体中,附加剪切阻力的贡献可能是显著的,从而导致三维FS的计算值大于二维FS的计算值。为了达到与静态2D FS相同的1.3或1.5的安全或风险水平,用户必须使用更高的最小FS进行3D分析。本文提出了计算合适的最小3D FS的方法,以达到与最小2D FS(如1.3或1.5)相似的安全或风险水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Selecting Minimum Factors of Safety for 3D Slope Stability Analyses
Geotechnical engineers understand there is uncertainty and risk in the input parameters for slope stability analyses and within the analysis methodologies themselves. Decades of research and inverse analyses of slope failures have resulted in widespread acceptance of certain factors of safety (FS) in typical situations, e.g., a static two-dimensional (2D) factor of safety of 1.3 is often used for temporary or low risk slopes and 1.5 for permanent slopes. However, these FSs are not appropriate for use with three-dimensional (3D) analyses because 3D analyses account for additional shear resistance that is generated along the sides of the slide mass. The contribution of the additional shear resistance can be significant in shallow slide masses or for translational slide masses with a width to height ratio less than six, resulting in calculated values of 3D FS that are greater than the calculated 2D FS. To achieve the same level of safety or risk as a static 2D FS of 1.3 or 1.5, the user must use a greater minimum FS for 3D analyses. This paper presents methods for calculating a suitable minimum 3D FS to achieve a similar level of safety or risk as a minimum 2D FS, such as 1.3 or 1.5, would afford.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Learning Foundation Engineering from Nature Evaluation of Several Design Methods for Calculating Axial Compression Capacity of Large Diameter Open-Ended Piles Stress History Effects on Shear Stiffness Degradation under Compression Paths of Hawthorn Group Clays in Central Florida Soil-Structure Interaction of Underreamed Piles Dissolution and Recrystallization of Iron Oxide during MICP
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1