›› 2018, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (3): 848-853.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2016.0206

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于模型试验的桩间距对组合式钢管抗滑桩抗滑效果的影响分析

储召军1, 2,石少卿1, 2,孙建虎1,李 季1,崔廉明1   

  1. 1. 后勤工程学院 军事土木工程系,重庆 401311;2. 后勤工程学院 岩土力学与地质环境保护重庆市重点实验室,重庆 401311
  • 收稿日期:2016-01-27 出版日期:2018-03-12 发布日期:2018-06-06
  • 作者简介:储召军,男,1987年生,博士研究生,主要从事岩土本构关系与军事地下工程稳定性研究。
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目(No.51378495);国家科技支撑计划项目(No.2012BAK05B00);重庆市自然科学基金重点项目(No.cstc2012jjB30004);后勤工程学院研究生创新专项经费(2012);重庆市研究生科研创新项目(2015)。

Analysis of anti-sliding mechanism of steel tube piles with different spacings based on model test

CHU Zhao-jun1, 2, SHI Shao-qing1, 2, SUN Jian-hu1, LI Ji1, CUI Lian-ming1   

  1. 1. Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Logistical Engineering University, Chongqing 401311, China; 2. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Geomechanics & Geoenvironmental Protection, Logistical Engineering University, Chongqing 401311, China
  • Received:2016-01-27 Online:2018-03-12 Published:2018-06-06
  • Supported by:

    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51378495), the National Science and Technology Supporting Plan Project (2012BAK05B00), Chongqing Natural Science Foundation (cstc2012jjB30004), Logistical Engineering University Innovation Fund for Graduate Students (2012) and the Innovation Fund of Chongqing for Graduate Students (2015).

摘要: 通过大型物理模型试验分别对3种不同桩间距组合式钢管抗滑桩治理滑坡的力学效应进行研究,对比分析桩顶位移、剪出口位移、桩身弯矩随荷载的变化规律和桩体、滑坡的破坏情况,讨论桩间距对组合式钢管抗滑桩抗滑效果的影响。试验结果表明,当桩间距由18.7 cm依次增大至23.5、28.0 cm,即由3.9d增大至4.9d、5.8d(d为小直径圆形钢管的外径),同等荷载作用时桩顶水平位移、剪出口水平位移、桩身弯矩逐渐增大,但桩间距由3.9d增大至4.9d时,位移与弯矩的增大幅度远大于桩间距由4.9d增大至5.8d。建议在组合式钢管抗滑桩设计中,若滑坡推力较小,可适当增大桩间距至5.8d甚至更大;若滑坡推力较大,应适当减小桩间距至3.9d甚至更小。无论滑坡推力较大或者较小,桩间距为4.9d的组合式钢管抗滑桩治理滑坡的性价比均较低。

关键词: 模型试验, 组合式钢管抗滑桩, 桩间距, 滑坡, 桩身弯矩, 桩顶位移, 剪出口位移

Abstract: By using the large physical model test, this paper investigated on the mechanism of the component steel tube anti-sliding piles distributed in different spacings. The authors have compared factors affecting of the spacing on the mechanism of the anti-sliding among the pile top’s distance, the cut-export distance, the bending moment distribution under changing loads and the destruction situation. The experiment results show that when the spacing is increased from 18.7 cm (3.9 times of d the pile external diameter) to 23.5 cm (4.9d) and 28 cm (5.8d), the distance of pile top and cut-export increases gradually. Besides, the bending moment of the pile also increases gradually. But when the spacing is increased from 3.9d to 4.9d, the increase range of the distance and the bending moment are greater than that when the spacing is increased from 4.9d to 5.8d. Thus, during the design of the component steel tube anti-sliding pile, it is better to increase the spacing to 5.8d or more when the landslide thrust is small and decreases the spacing to 3.9d or less when the landslide thrust is large. Whether the landslide thrust is large or small, the component steel tube anti-sliding pile has a low-cost performance to treat landslide when the spacing is 4.9d.

Key words: model test, component steel anti-sliding pile, spacing, slope, bending moment of the pile, pile top distance, cut-export distance

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] 罗刚, 张辉傲, 马国涛, 周海文, 胡卸文, 王文健, 王文沛, . 高速岩质滑坡滑面滑动摩擦特性研究——以王山 抓口寺滑坡为例[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2441-2452.
[5] 杜文杰, 盛谦, 付晓东, 汤华, 陈贺, 杜宇翔, 周永强, . 地震作用下岩羊村滑坡稳定性与失稳机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2461-2469.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 简文彬, 黄聪惠, 罗阳华, 聂闻. 降雨入渗下非饱和坡残积土湿润锋运移试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1123-1133.
[12] 韩冬冬, 门玉明, 胡兆江. 土质滑坡格构锚杆抗滑机制及受力试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1189-1194.
[13] 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.
[14] 黄晓虎, 易武, 黄海峰, 邓永煌. 优势流入渗与坡体变形关系研究及应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1396-1403.
[15] 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.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!