[资料]边坡稳定性分析---极限平衡法新进展 [复制链接]

GG们说条分法好,你们就用条分法,  大家可以讨论一下, 各种方法的优势和缺点,  我觉得这是对极限平衡法研究的伟大进展,  条分在工程用的是很多,  请真正想看懂这方法后再说,  我不觉得有什么科学道德的问题,  有什么问题来讨论啊,  王婆是在卖瓜  那是人家有瓜卖,  没的瓜卖的瞎吆喝算是什么......

刚学完高等土力学，看看大家写的东西体验体验，希望能够学到东西，借鉴借鉴。

本人也未真正理解上述两文的真谤,但在这里向各位谈点看法: n1>,#|#  
(1)方法及理论上的创新是我们科技工作者的义务,任一新的方法理论从提出到得到大家的普遍接受需要一个过程,这需要我们大家本着科学客观的态度来对待,任何过急的言行都是无益的; ^'[@M'`~L  
(2)在论坛上我们虽然彼此互不认识,但能在这里相识也是一种缘份，希望大家珍惜！更何况我相信本论坛的会员都有很高的文化修养，而且是同行，说不定哪天还有机会合作呢！ 7ITl3>  
所以本人以网友的身份建议大家发言时言词不要偏激，更不应发表一些有人身攻击之嫌的言论！！！

These 2 papers are quite good, worth reading.

Problem of these papers : If I am correct, the base normal force is linearly interpolated, so there are very few unknowns and the problem can be solved. This apply to 2D and 3D formulation. There is no reason why the base normal force is linearly interpolated !! This is a big problem. By nature, the problem is under-specified by n-1, so the authors make the assumption on base normal force to make the problem determinate. j:e^7
|.
 
1n`1o-&l-  
I think the assumptions by the authors are not good, and definitely not better than traditional method of f(x). We can also make assumption on f(x) and achieve similar result as the authors. The authors must explain why a linearly interpolation on the base normal force is acceptable. If we use strength reduction method (finite element), the base normal force is definitely not linear !

下来看看先 f' '{.L  
M[K0t>ih  
谢谢

ymcheng说的很好, 不过, 拿强度折减来说正应力的分布是否线性并不能说明问题, 有限元算出来的正应力是σ=σ0+f,  而这里的线性是对f的假设,  对于f是否应该线性,  只是对于数值上的处理,  这种处理并不影响σ是否线性,  对于不同的处理方法,文中也提到了这种处理更接近自然状态, 其他的非线性处理方法, 大家可以看看朱大勇老师和BEEL老师的那两篇文章, 里面有更详细的说法

I have used Spencer method to test 1 of the problem. The base normal force is not linear. The assumption of linear base normal is not better than assumption of f(x), and may be even worse. Besides Spencer method is not accurate, Pan's extremum principle which is the lower bound also gives nonlinear base normal.  Looks like all existing method gives nonlinear base normal. There is no special reason for linear base normal forces. Y%/ YFO2vb  
d=?Mj]  
This method avoid f(x), but assume base normal forces to be linear. Any comment from others about this requirement ?

感谢大大提供 ” 严格三维极限平衡法 ” ” 边坡稳定性分析的无条分法 ”……呆呆感谢您的分享

正应力是σ=σ0+f,  而这里的线性是对f的假设,  对于f是否应该线性,  只是对于数值上的处理,  这种处理并不影响σ是否线性,  对于不同的处理方法,文中也提到了这种处理更接近自然状态, 其他的非线性处理方法, 大家可以看看朱大勇老师和BEEL老师的那两篇文章, 里面有更详细的说法

If f is not linear, there is no way to formulate the equations as in the 2 papers. If we assume unknowns σ1 to σn, then the same limitation of limit equilibrium will come out - insufficient equations to solve the problems. The 2 papers rely on this linear function for f. If f is nonlinear, the methods by 朱大勇老师和BEEL is actually not different from classical method. xJ
~ gT  
CZyz;Jtk  
This problem is statically indeterminate in nature, and no matter how we formulate the equations, we need to make assumptions. In this respect, the assumption for f(x) or base normal forces are actually similar. If the geometry and soil profiles are highly irregular, I do not believe that f is a linear function, determined by interpolation from the two ends only. ~{4n}*  
If we form the equations by σ1 to σn, then additional assumptions are required for solving he equations ! W-z90k4Z5  
;P;"F21^>  
Further discussion are welcome.

朱大勇老师和BEEL 的方法是不同, 但他们的相同之处在: 他们都是采用了滑面的法向应力修正技术,  只是朱大勇老师和BEEL 虽说是整体分析但为了计算积分需要还是要条分,  郑是同样的条分基础上实现了整体分析而不用条分