岩土力学 ›› 2019, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (8): 3011-3018.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2018.0829

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

自平衡与传统静载试桩法模型试验研究

蔡 雨1, 2,徐林荣1, 3,周德泉2,邓 超1,冯晨曦2   

  1. 1. 中南大学 土木工程学院,湖南 长沙 410075;2. 长沙理工大学 土木工程学院,湖南 长沙 410114; 3. 中南大学 高速铁路建造技术国家工程实验室,湖南 长沙 410075
  • 收稿日期:2018-08-05 出版日期:2019-08-12 发布日期:2019-08-25
  • 通讯作者: 周德泉,男,1967年生,博士,教授,主要从事地基、基础工程等方面的科研与教学工作。E-mail:zhoudequan28@163.com E-mail:15616124236@163.com
  • 作者简介:蔡雨,男,1989年生,博士研究生,主要从事地基与基础工程方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(No. 51378083,No. 51778634)

Model test research on method of self-balance and traditional static load

CAI Yu1, 2, XU Lin-rong1, 3, ZHOU De-quan2, DENG Chao1, FENG Chen-xi2   

  1. 1. College of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China; 2. College of Civil Engineering, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410114, China; 3. National Engineering Laboratory of High-speed Railway Construction Technology, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China
  • Received:2018-08-05 Online:2019-08-12 Published:2019-08-25
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (51378083, 51778634).

摘要: 自平衡试桩法相较于传统静载试桩法而言具有方便、经济、适应性强等优势,但该法一直备受争议。为研究自平衡与传统静载试桩法荷载传递规律的差异及原因,进行了花岗岩残积土中相同边界条件下自平衡试桩、静压试桩、抗拔试桩室内模型试验。通过桩身所贴电阻应变片,获得了各级荷载下桩身不同位置的应变值,对单桩极限承载力、桩身轴力传递、桩侧摩阻力分布进行分析。研究表明:(1)花岗岩残积土中,自平衡上段桩与抗拔桩在达到极限承载力时,呈突发性破坏;(2)模型试验对比分析得出花岗岩残积土中桩侧摩阻力转换系数? 为0.573;(3)底托和顶拔两种加载方式测得的单桩抗拔极限承载力相当;(4)荷载从加载端向另一端传递,各试桩桩侧摩阻力较大值所在位置不同,自平衡上段桩与抗拔桩在桩身下部,静压试桩在桩身中部。

关键词: 试桩法, 自平衡, 模型试验, 花岗岩残积土, 荷载传递, 桩侧摩阻力

Abstract: Compared with the traditional static load test method, the self-balanced pile test method has the advantages of convenience, economy and adaptability. However, the method is always controversial. To study the difference and reason of load transfer law between self-balanced and traditional static load test pile methods, the laboratory model tests of self-balanced pile, static pressure pile and uplift pile in granite residual soil under the same boundary condition are carried out. Through the resistance strain gauge attached to one side of the pile body, the strain values of the pile body at different positions under various loads are obtained. Additionally, the ultimate bearing capacity of the single pile, the axial force transfer of the pile body, and the distribution of friction on the side of the pile are analyzed. The results show that: 1) In granite residual soil, the self-balanced upper pile and the uplift pile show “sudden” failure when they reach the ultimate load; 2) The conversion coefficient ? of pile side friction resistance in granite residual soil obtained by the model test is 0.573; 3) The ultimate uplift bearing capacity of single pile measured by two loading methods of bottom support and top pull is equivalent; 4) The load is transferred from loading position to the other end of the pile. For each test pile, the distribution of the relatively larger value of the lateral friction resistance is different. For the self-balancing pile and the uplift pile, the positions are concentrated in the bottom of the pile, and for the static pressure test pile that is concentrated in the middle of the pile body.

Key words: pile test method, self-balance, model test, granite residual soil, load transfer, pile side friction

中图分类号: 

  • TU 473
[1] 徐刚, 张春会, 于永江, . 综放工作面覆岩破断和压架的试验研究及预测模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(S1): 106-114.
[2] 张磊, 海维深, 甘浩, 曹卫平, 王铁行, . 水平与上拔组合荷载下柔性单桩 承载特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2261-2270.
[3] 黄巍, 肖维民, 田梦婷, 张林浩, . 不规则柱状节理岩体力学特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2349-2359.
[4] 邹新军, 曹雄, 周长林, . 砂土地基中受水流影响的竖向力−水平力联合 受荷桩承载特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1855-1864.
[5] 程永辉, 胡胜刚, 王汉武, 张成. 深埋砂层旁压特征参数的深度效应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1881-1886.
[6] 史林肯, 周辉, 宋明, 卢景景, 张传庆, 路新景, . 深部复合地层TBM开挖扰动模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1933-1943.
[7] 刘新宇, 张先伟, 岳好真, 孔令伟, 徐超, . 花岗岩残积土动态冲击性能的SHPB试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 2001-2008.
[8] 宁奕冰, 唐辉明, 张勃成, 申培武, 章广成, 夏丁, . 基于正交设计的岩石相似材料配比研究及 底摩擦物理模型试验应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 2009-2020.
[9] 蒲诃夫, 潘友富, KHOTEJA Dibangar, 周洋. 絮凝-水平真空两段式脱水法处理高 含水率疏浚淤泥模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(5): 1502-1509.
[10] 刘功勋, 李威, 洪国军, 张坤勇, CHEN Xiu-han, 施绍刚, RUTTEN Tom. 大比尺切削模型试验条件下砂岩破坏特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1211-1218.
[11] 汤明高, 李松林, 许 强, 龚正峰, 祝 权, 魏 勇. 基于离心模型试验的库岸滑坡变形特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 755-764.
[12] 宋丁豹, 蒲诃夫, 陈保国, 孟庆达, . 高填方减载式刚性涵洞受力特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 823-830.
[13] 米博, 项彦勇, . 砂土地层浅埋盾构隧道开挖渗流稳定性的 模型试验和计算研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 837-848.
[14] 侯公羽, 胡涛, 李子祥, 谢冰冰, 肖海林, 周天赐, . 基于分布式光纤技术的采动影响下覆岩 变形演化规律试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 970-979.
[15] 王国辉, 陈文化, 聂庆科, 陈军红, 范晖红, 张川, . 深厚淤泥质土中基坑开挖对基桩 影响的离心模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 399-407.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!