›› 2005, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (11): 1819-1822.

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

试桩测试方法对桩基承载特性的影响研究

张晓炜   

  1. 河南省交通规划勘察设计院,郑州 450052
  • 收稿日期:2004-08-02 出版日期:2005-11-10 发布日期:2014-01-03
  • 作者简介:张晓炜,1967年生,高级工程师,从事岩土工程勘察、设计与检测工作。

Study on the influence of test methods on the bearing behaviors of piles

ZHANG Xiao-wei   

  1. Henan Provincial Communications Planning Surveying & Designing Institute, Zhengzhou 450052, China
  • Received:2004-08-02 Online:2005-11-10 Published:2014-01-03

摘要: 吉利黄河公路特大桥施工了2根相同直径的试桩,分别采用锚桩法和自平衡试桩法进行静载荷测试。根据S2(自平衡试桩法,50 m)上段桩与S1(锚桩法,32 m)桩的平均摩阻力进行的对比,二者表现出相似的变化规律,均可采用双曲线模型很好的拟合,取趋于稳定的同一位移(12 mm)进行比较,在中密卵石层中平均负摩阻力约为平均正摩阻力的0.84倍。桩S1,S2的Q-S曲线均呈缓变型,在曲线前半段,两条曲线非常接近。在后半段,随着荷载增大,S1桩的下降速率明显大于S2桩,若取同一位移30 mm进行对比,S2的承载力为59.5×103 kN,S1的承载力为48×103 kN。S1的端阻力占总荷载的比例为22.46 %,为摩擦端承桩。S2端阻力占总荷载的比例只有3.59 %,桩顶沉降基本由桩身压缩引起,为摩擦桩。

关键词: 试桩, 自平衡试桩法, 锚桩法, 承载力

Abstract: Two test piles with the same diameter for the Jili-Yellow River Bridge were tested with the self-balanced test and the anchored pile method respectively. According to the contrast of average shaft resistances of two piles, the regularity of the relationship between settlement and average shaft resistances is similar, they could be fitted with the hyperbolic model. While settlement is 12 mm, the average negative shaft resistance is 0.84 times of the normal one. The Q-S curves is very close in the first part, but with the increase of loads , the descending rate of the curve of S1 is faster than that of S2. While settlement is 30 mm, the capacity of S2 is 59 500 kN,the capacity of S1 is 48 000 kN. The ratio of base resistance of S1 to the total load is 22.46 %, this pile is a friction-base pile; the ratio of base resistance of S2 to the total load is 3.59 %, this pile is a friction pile.

Key words: test pile, self-balanced test method, anchored pile method, bearing capacity

中图分类号: 

  • TU 473
[1] 李书兆, 王忠畅, 贾 旭, 贺林林, . 软黏土中张紧式吸力锚循环承载力简化计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1704-1712.
[2] 王宇飞, 刘 润. 砂土中浅埋管道在竖向−水平荷载空间的 承载力包络线研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(3): 1129-1139.
[3] 熊晓荣,汤 华,廖明进,尹小涛,王东英, . 隧道锚“楔形效应”的室内模型试验研究[J]. , 2018, 39(S1): 181-190.
[4] 宗钟凌,鲁先龙,李青松,. 静压钢管注浆微型桩抗压与抗拔对比试验研究[J]. , 2018, 39(S1): 362-368.
[5] 尹君凡,雷 勇,陈秋南,刘一新,邓加政,. 偏心荷载下溶洞顶板冲切破坏上限分析[J]. , 2018, 39(8): 2837-2843.
[6] 曹文贵,谭建辉,胡卫东, . 水平加筋地基极限承载力的极限上限分析法[J]. , 2018, 39(6): 1955-1962.
[7] 柳晓科,鹿 群,路士伟,刘春龙,郭少龙,. 低裙式吸力桩真空沉贯及抗拔极限承载力[J]. , 2018, 39(6): 2089-2098.
[8] 李 泽,刘 毅,周 宇,王均星,. 基于混合离散的砌石挡土墙边坡极限承载力下限分析[J]. , 2018, 39(3): 1100-1108.
[9] 李 林, 李镜培, 赵高文, 崔纪飞, . 基于有效应力法的静压桩时变承载力研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2018, 39(12): 4547-4553.
[10] 郑 刚,于晓旋,杜 娟,尹 鑫,周海祚,杨新煜, . 临近边坡的条形基础地基极限承载力数值分析[J]. , 2018, 39(10): 3812-3820.
[11] 孔纲强,彭怀风,朱 希,顾红伟,周立朵,. 水平荷载下纵截面异形桩承载特性试验[J]. , 2018, 39(1): 229-236.
[12] 宗钟凌,鲁先龙,李青松,张振东,. 静压钢管注浆微型桩承载性能试验研究[J]. , 2017, 38(S2): 323-329.
[13] 吴则祥,金银富,季 慧,尹振宇,. 易破碎砂土地基中“平底桩”贯入数值模拟分析[J]. , 2017, 38(S2): 330-336.
[14] 李连祥,胡 峰,扈学波,张加冕,. 新型装配式可回收基坑土钉的开发和应用[J]. , 2017, 38(S1): 113-122.
[15] 李 林,李镜培,孙德安,方 睿, . 天然饱和黏土地基静压桩承载力时效性研究[J]. , 2017, 38(9): 2515-2522.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!