岩土力学 ›› 2019, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (11): 4185-4193.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2018.1640

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

玄武岩纤维与钢筋锚杆锚固性能现场对比试验研究

冯君1,王洋2,张俞峰1,黄林1,何长江1,吴红刚3   

  1. 1. 西南交通大学 土木工程学院,四川 成都 610031;2. 东南大学 土木工程学院,江苏 南京 210096; 3. 中铁西北科学研究院有限公司,甘肃 兰州 730000
  • 收稿日期:2018-09-04 出版日期:2019-11-11 发布日期:2019-11-12
  • 通讯作者: 王洋,男,1992年生,博士研究生,主要从事桩基础方面的研究工作。E-mail: wy_0127@163.com E-mail:fengjun4316@163.com
  • 作者简介:冯君,男,1977年生,博士,副教授,主要从事岩土力学方面的教学与研究工作。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(No. 51178402);中国中铁股份公司科技开发计划(2015-重点-32,中铁科研院(科研)字 2015-KJ037-G006-03)。

Experimental comparison of anchorage performance between basalt fiber and steel bars

FENG Jun1, WANG Yang2, ZHANG Yu-feng1, HUANG Lin1, HE Chang-jiang1, WU Hong-gang3   

  1. 1. School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, China; 2. School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210096, China; 3. Northwest Research Institute Co., Ltd., of CREC, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
  • Received:2018-09-04 Online:2019-11-11 Published:2019-11-12
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51178402), the Technology Development Plan of China Railway Corporation (2015- key -32) and China Academy of Railway Sciences Corporation Limited (Scientific Research) (2015-KJ037-G006-03).

摘要: 玄武岩纤维(BFRP)锚杆具有抗拉强度高、耐腐蚀性能好等优点,是岩土锚固结构中钢筋的良好替代品,近年颇受业界关注。通过在黄土地层中开展4组?25 mm BFRP锚杆和钢锚杆的现场拉拔试验,初步研究两种材质锚杆的破坏模式和锚固性能差异。研究结果表明:对于诸如?25 mm类较大直径土层锚杆,拉拔过程中锚固体系的灌浆体内外界面破坏迹象共存,但最终破坏模式受控于灌浆体与土层界面(第二界面),且BFRP锚杆与砂浆内界面(第一界面)破坏程度明显高于钢锚杆;两种材质锚杆的极限承载力相近,界面黏结强度均随锚固长度的增大而减小;受两种材质锚杆本身的加工工艺和材料力学性能影响,试验中钢锚杆与灌浆体的黏结性能优于BFRP锚杆;相同荷载水平,相同位置处,BFRP锚杆杆体轴力大于钢锚杆,轴力衰减速率略小于钢锚杆;峰值剪应力BFRP锚杆小于钢锚杆。

关键词: 黄土地层;BFRP锚杆;现场拉拔试验;极限承载力, 破坏模式

Abstract: Basalt fiber (BFRP) anchor has many advantages, such as high tensile strength, good corrosion resistance, etc. It is a good substitute for reinforcement in geotechnical anchorage structure, and has attracted much attention in recent years. Four groups of field pull-out tests were carried out in the loess stratum to study the failure modes and anchorage performance difference between the 25 mm diameter BFRP bolts and steel bolts. The results show that the failure signs on inner and outer surface of grouting coexist in the process of drawing for large diameter soil anchor. However, the ultimate failure mode is controlled by the interface between grouting and soil (the 2nd interface), and the damage degree of the interface between BFRP bolt and grouting (the 1st interface) is evidently higher than that of steel bolt. The ultimate bearing capacity of two bolts is similar, and the interfacial bond strength decreases with increasing anchorage length. The bond performance between the steel bolt and grouting is better than that of the BFRP bolt, which is mainly caused by the different processing technology and material mechanical properties between the two bolts. At the same load level and position, the axial force of BFRP bolt is larger than that of steel bolt, and the attenuation rate of axial force is slightly smaller than that of steel bolt; the peak shear stress of BFRP bolt is also smaller than that of steel bolt.

Key words: losses, BFRP bolts, field pull-out tests, bearing capacity, failure mode

中图分类号: 

  • TU 470
[1] 李超, 李涛, 荆国业, 肖玉华. 竖井掘进机撑靴井壁土体极限承载力研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(S1): 227-236.
[2] 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.
[3] 赵明华, 彭文哲, 杨超炜, 肖尧, 刘亚楠. 斜坡地基刚性桩水平承载力上限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 727-735.
[4] 孟庆彬, 钱唯, 韩立军, 蔚立元, 王丛凯, 周星, . 极弱胶结岩体再生结构的形成机制 与力学特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 799-812.
[5] 江南, 黄林, 冯君, 张圣亮, 王铎, . 铁路悬索桥隧道式锚碇设计计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 999-1009.
[6] 孙锐, 杨峰, 阳军生, 赵乙丁, 郑响凑, 罗静静, 姚捷, . 基于二阶锥规划与高阶单元的 自适应上限有限元研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 687-694.
[7] 王培涛, 黄正均, 任奋华, 章亮, 蔡美峰, . 基于3D打印的含复杂节理岩石直剪特性 及破坏机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 46-56.
[8] 戴国亮, 朱文波, 郭晶, 龚维明, 赵学亮, . 软黏土中吸力式沉箱基础竖向抗拔承载 特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 119-126.
[9] 王钦科, 马建林, 陈文龙, 杨彦鑫, 胡中波, . 上覆土嵌岩扩底桩抗拔承载特性离心 模型试验及计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3405-3415.
[10] 刘新荣, 邓志云, 刘永权, 刘树林, 路雨明, . 地震作用下水平层状岩质边坡累积损伤与 破坏模式研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2507-2516.
[11] 许 江, 瞿佳美, 刘义鑫, 彭守建, 王 威, 吴善康, . 循环剪切荷载作用下充填物对结构面 剪切特性影响试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1627-1637.
[12] 李世俊, 马昌慧, 刘应明, 韩玉珍, 张 彬, 张 嘎, . 离心模型试验与数值模拟相结合研究 采空边坡渐进破坏特性[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(4): 1577-1583.
[13] 柯志强, 王环玲, 徐卫亚, 林志南, 吉 华, . 含横向节理的柱状节理岩体力学特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(2): 660-667.
[14] 张春生, 赖道平, 吴关叶, 徐建荣, 张伯艳, . 强震作用下复杂边坡块体破坏模式 和破坏特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4620-4626.
[15] 崔凯, 冯飞, 谌文武, 汪小海, 程富强, . 生石灰为掺料的土遗址裂隙注浆浆液结石体 力学兼容性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4627-4636.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!