›› 2018, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (9): 3285-3293.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2016.2870

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

软黏土中吸力锚循环失稳过程的模型试验

程星磊1, 2,王建华1,王哲学1   

  1. 1. 天津大学 水利工程仿真与安全国家重点实验室,天津 300072;2. 天津城建大学 天津市软土特性与工程环境重点实验室,天津 300384
  • 收稿日期:2016-12-06 出版日期:2018-09-11 发布日期:2018-10-08
  • 通讯作者: 王建华,男,1955年生,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事土动力学与海洋岩土工程方面的研究工作。E-mail: tdwjh@tju.edu.cn E-mail: chengxinglei110@163.com
  • 作者简介:程星磊,男,1987年生,博士研究生,主要从事土的动力特性及本构关系方面的研究工作。
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目(No.51579174);天津市高等学校基本科研业务费资助项目(No.2016CJ04,No.2016CJ01)

Model experiment on cyclic instability process of suction anchors in soft clays

CHENG Xing-lei1, 2, WANG Jian-hua1, WANG Zhe-xue1   

  1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China; 2. Key Laboratory of Soft Soil Engineering Character and Engineering Environment of Tianjin, Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin 300384, China
  • Received:2016-12-06 Online:2018-09-11 Published:2018-10-08
  • Supported by:

    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51579174) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Universities in Tianjin City (2016CJ04, 2016CJ01).

摘要: 开展了张紧式吸力锚在侧壁最优系泊点处遭受平均荷载和循环荷载共同作用下的模型试验,着重研究了软黏土中吸力锚在等幅及变幅循环荷载下的变形失稳过程。研究发现,循环累积位移过大是锚发生破坏的主要原因。对于等幅循环加载试验,由于竖向附加荷重的施加,锚在水平向的循环累积位移要明显大于竖向,表现为明显的水平破坏模式。在特定的平均荷载水平下,循环荷载水平越高,锚的累积位移发展得越快,达到破坏所需的循环次数就越少。循环位移随循环次数的增长变化不明显,但随循环荷载水平的增大而增大。对于变幅循环加载试验,系泊点各方向的循环累积位移与循环位移均与循环荷载水平成正比。不同的循环加载时程下,锚的竖向累积位移均比水平累积位移大,表现为偏向于竖向破坏的中间破坏模式。锚前期的循环加载历史对后续加载产生的累积变形有明显影响。与静力加载相比,循环加载时锚的运动方向角有所增大,这可能是由于锚底孔压的累积要大于锚侧孔压的累积,从有效应力的角度分析,锚底有效应力的减少相对锚侧明显,进而使得锚竖向承载力减小得更多,导致锚的竖向运动更明显。

关键词: 吸力锚, 模型试验, 循环荷载, 循环变形, 软黏土

Abstract: Model tests of the suction anchors with taut mooring systems are conducted under combined average and cyclic loads at the optimal loading point on the side wall of anchors. The deformation instability process of suction anchor subjected to constant and variable amplitude cyclic loads are investigated. It is found that too large cyclic accumulative displacement is the main reason for the failure of anchor. The cyclic accumulative displacement of anchor in the horizontal direction is larger than that in the vertical direction due to application of the vertical additional loads, so the horizontal failure of suction anchors occurs for the constant amplitude cyclic loading tests. The accumulative displacement increases faster with higher cyclic load level at a given average load level, and the number of cycles to failure becomes less. The cyclic displacement does not change obviously with the increase of the number of cycles, but increases with the increase of cyclic load level. The cyclic accumulative displacement and cyclic displacement in each direction at the mooring point increase with the increase of cyclic load level for variable amplitude cyclic loading tests. The accumulative displacements are larger in vertical than in horizontal under different cyclic loading time histories, so the moderate preferring vertical failures of anchors occur. Besides, the previous cyclic loading histories have an obvious influence on the accumulative deformation produced by subsequent loading. Compared with the static loading, the movement direction angle of the anchor under cyclic loading increases, which may be due to the greater accumulation of pore pressure at the bottom of the anchor than that at the side wall. From the view of effective stress, the decrease of effective stress at the bottom is relative obvious than that at the side wall, thus vertical bearing capacity decreases more remarkably, and vertical movement of anchor is more obvious.

Key words: suction anchors, model tests, cyclic loads, cyclic deformation, soft clays

中图分类号: 

  • TU 443

[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] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 张升, 高峰, 陈琪磊, 盛岱超, . 砂-粉土混合料在列车荷载作用下 细颗粒迁移机制试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(5): 1591-1598.
[10] 王钰轲, 万永帅, 方宏远, 曾长女, 石明生, 吴迪, . 圆形应力路径下软黏土的动力特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(5): 1643-1652.
[11] 李潇旋, 李涛, 李舰, 张涛. 循环荷载下非饱和结构性黏土的弹塑性双面模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1153-1160.
[12] 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.
[13] 任连伟, 曹辉, 孔纲强. 试剂注入配合比对化学电渗法处治软黏土 加固效应对比研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1219-1226.
[14] 李宗泽, 姜德义, 范金洋, 陈 结, 刘 伟, 吴 斐, 杜 超, 康燕飞. 盐岩三轴间隔疲劳特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1305-1312.
[15] 任宇晓, 闫玥, 付登锋. 浅层地基上管道轴向运动的阻力研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1404-1411.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!