中国安全科学学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (S2): 87-94.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.S2.0017

• 安全工程技术 • 上一篇    下一篇

极限平衡法下某露天矿采场多工况边坡稳定性分析

常盛山1(), 庞一博2   

  1. 1 青海祁连山水泥有限公司, 青海 西宁 811600
    2 中安国泰(北京)科技发展有限公司, 北京 102209
  • 收稿日期:2025-07-18 出版日期:2026-02-04
  • 作者简介:

    常盛山 (1985—),男,甘肃通渭人,专科,工程师,主要从事矿山管理,矿山边坡治理及边坡稳定性方面的工作。E-mail:

Stability analysis of multi-working condition slopes in a certain open-pit mine stope based on limit equilibrium methods

CHANG Shengshan1(), PANG Yibo2   

  1. 1 Qinghai Qilian Mountain Cement Co., Ltd., Xining Qinghai 811600, China
    2 Cathay Safety Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing 102209, China
  • Received:2025-07-18 Published:2026-02-04

摘要:

为提高露天矿采场的边坡稳定性,结合工程地质条件等关键因素,将采场划分为3个区域,针对各区域剖面,进行渗流场分析,在渗流场的基础上,采用极限平衡法中的 Bishop 法与 M-P 法,分别开展在自重+地下水、自重+地下水+爆破振动力、自重+地下水+地震力情况下的边坡稳定性分析。结果表明:渗流场沿地形方向整体分布均匀,渗流路径呈平缓弯曲过渡;Bishop 法与 M-P 法的计算结果一致性较高,安全系数最大差值不超过0.02;同时,3个剖面在地震力与爆破振动力作用下的受影响程度排名为:B1>A1>C1;A1、B1这2个剖面在2种方法下的计算安全系数均高于许用安全系数,属于稳定边坡,C1剖面在自重+地下水、自重+地下水+爆破振动力作用下计算的安全系数均高于许用安全系数,属于稳定边坡;在自重+地下水+地震力作用下的安全系数略低于许用安全系数,但仍大于1,属于基本稳定边坡。

关键词: 极限平衡法, 露天矿, 边坡稳定性, 渗流场, Bishop法, M-P法, 安全系数

Abstract:

To improve the slope stability of an open-pit mine stope, the stope was divided into 3 zones by taking into account key factors such as engineering geological conditions. For the profiles of each zone, seepage field analysis was conducted. On the basis of the seepage field, the Bishop method and M-P method (both limit equilibrium methods) were adopted to carry out slope stability analysis under three scenarios, respectively: self-weight + groundwater, self-weight + groundwater + blasting vibration force, and self-weight + groundwater + seismic force. The results show that the seepage field was distributed uniformly overall in the topographic direction, and the seepage paths presented a gentle curved transition. The calculation results of the Bishop method and M-P method had high consistency, with the maximum difference in safety factors not exceeding 0.02. Meanwhile, the order of the influence of seismic and blast vibration forces on the three profiles was B1 > A1 > C1. The calculated safety factors of the two profiles A1 and B1 obtained by the two methods were both higher than the allowable safety factor, so they are classified as stable slopes; for profile C1, the calculated safety factors under the actions of self-weight + groundwater and self-weight + groundwater + blasting vibration force were both higher than the allowable safety factor, so it is a stable slope; under the action of self-weight + groundwater + seismic force, its safety factor is slightly lower than the allowable safety factor but still greater than 1, so it is classified as a basically stable slope.

Key words: limit equilibrium method, open-pit mine, slope stability, seepage field, Bishop method, M-P method, safety factor method

中图分类号: