砂性土中自平衡试验转换系数取值研究

doi:10.16285/j.rsm.2016.S1.087

›› 2016, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (S1): 659-668.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2016.S1.087

砂性土中自平衡试验转换系数取值研究

李小娟^{1, 2}，戴国亮^{1, 2}，龚维明^{1, 2}，徐文希³，王磊^{1, 2}

1. 东南大学混凝土及预应力混凝土结构教育部重点实验室，江苏南京 210096；2. 东南大学土木工程学院，江苏南京 210096; 3. 苏州设计研究院股份有限公司，江苏苏州 215021

收稿日期:2015-09-14 出版日期:2016-06-16 发布日期:2018-06-09
通讯作者: 戴国亮，男，1975年生，博士，教授，主要从事基础工程教学及科研工作。E-mail: daigl@seu.edu.cn E-mail:15105186685@163.com
作者简介:李小娟，女，1989年生，硕士研究生，主要从事桩基工程及地基处理等方面工作
基金资助:
国家重点基础研究发展计划973项目（No. 2013CB036304）。

Research on conversion factor of self-balanced loading test in sandy soil

LI Xiao-juan^{1, 2}, DAI Guo-liang^1,2, GONG Wei-ming^{1, 2}, XU Wen-xi³, WANG Lei^{1, 2}

1. Key Laboratory for RC and PRC Structures of Education Ministry, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210096, China; 2. School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210096, China; 3. Suzhou Institute of Architectural Design Co., Ltd., Suzhou, Jiangsu 215021, China

Received:2015-09-14 Online:2016-06-16 Published:2018-06-09
Supported by:
This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) ( 2013CB036304).

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 自平衡法测试基桩抗压承载力时转换系数取值的合理性直接影响到检测结论的准确性。为确定砂性土中转换系数?的准确性，选取3个工程，主要土层均为砂性土，同一场地均进行了自平衡法和传统静载试验。每个工程中选取自平衡检测的基桩与传统静载的基桩为对比组，其地质条件、施工工艺、桩的几何尺寸、桩顶和桩底高相近或一致，以传统静载法测得结果为基准，采用Matlab编程对自平衡法测得等效荷载-位移曲线进行拟合，得出与传统静载法结果拟合度最佳的? 取值。将? 的拟合值和? = 0.6、0.7和? 原工程取值分别得到的等效位移荷载曲线与传统静载试验结果进行对比。结果表明，（1）3个工程中所得转换系数γ拟合值取值范围在0.42～0.71之间，与原工程中采用的γ值相比均偏小；（2）? 取值对等效受压桩上段桩总摩阻力和弹性压缩量的影响很大；（3）采用转换系数γ拟合值计算的等效转换曲线与原工程中采用的? 值相比更接近传统静载法所得结果，表明3个工程中? 的取值均过大，导致所测极限承载力过于保守；（4）砂性土中自平衡转换系数建议取值为0.6～0.7左右。

关键词: 自平衡试验, 传统静载试验, 砂性土, 转换系数

Abstract: In the self-balanced loading test, reasonable determination of conversion factor γ, ratio of downward shaft resistance to upward shaft resistance, is critically important for the accuracy of bearing capacity and final decision of pile loading test. To study the appropriate value of γ in sandy soil, 3 typical construction projects are chosen. All of their main soil layer are sandy soil; and the self-balanced loading test and head-down loading test are conducted at every site. And then a pile from self-balanced loading test and one from head-down loading test are picked as a group. In these groups, the geometrical sizes, geological condition and construction method of the two piles are same or similar. Because the results from traditional loading test are more convincing than ones from self-balanced loading test in general, the results from top-down loading test are taken as references; and then the Matlab is used to find the optimal fitting solution of γ, latterly, returning the value to the simplified capacity equation of the self-balanced loading test, and comparing the result of equivalent top-loaded settlement curve with ones from γ used in actual project and from head-down loading test, ? = 0.6 and 0.7. The results show that: (1) The fitted values of ? from 3 projects are ranged from 0.47 to 0.71, which are rather smaller than that used in actual projects. (2) The accuracy of ? has large effect on the values of Qs (skin friction) and sss (elastic compression from skin friction distribution) of upper piles of the equivalent pile. (3) Compared with the top-loaded settlement curve from traditional loading test, the results from the optimal fitting solution of ? fit much better than of which used in actual project ,which means that values of ? used in these projects are overly conservative, which cause overly conservative judgement of bearing capacity. (4) It is suggested that the value of conversion factor ? in sandy soil about 0.6 to 0.7.

Key words: self-balanced loading test, traditional loading test, sandy soil, conversion factor

中图分类号:

TU 473.1

李小娟，戴国亮，龚维明，徐文希，王磊 , . 砂性土中自平衡试验转换系数取值研究[J]. , 2016, 37(S1): 659-668.

LI Xiao-juan, DAI Guo-liang, GONG Wei-ming, XU Wen-xi, WANG Lei , . Research on conversion factor of self-balanced loading test in sandy soil[J]. , 2016, 37(S1): 659-668.

参考文献

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	李小娟，陈雪奖，戴国亮，龚维明,. 黏性土中钻孔灌注桩自平衡转换系数取值研究[J]. , 2016, 37(S1): 226-232.
[2]	宇德忠，程培峰，季成，崔志刚,. 高纬度低海拔岛状多年冻土桩基回冻前后承载力的试验研究[J]. , 2015, 36(S2): 478-484.
[3]	严珺凡，施斌，曹鼎峰，魏广庆，朱鸿鹄，. 基于碳纤维加热光缆的砂性土渗流场C-DTS分布式监测试验研究[J]. , 2015, 36(2): 430-436.
[4]	贾剑，周顺华，宫全美. 砂性土成拱应力释放特性的模型试验及数值模拟研究[J]. , 2013, 34(2): 395-403.
[5]	张云，薛禹群，施小清，宋震. 饱和砂性土非线性蠕变模型试验研究[J]. , 2005, 26(12): 1869-1873.
[6]	潘培才；杨慕怀；张文敏；. 亚粘土地基的性状及其不均匀沉降之分析[J]. , 1985, 6(1): 47-57.

砂性土中自平衡试验转换系数取值研究

Research on conversion factor of self-balanced loading test in sandy soil

PDF (Chinese)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 6

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0