岩土力学 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10): 3405-3414.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2019.2160

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于简化力学模型的隧道锚极限承载力估值公式

王东英1, 2, 3, 4,汤华3,尹小涛3,杨光华1, 2, 4,姜燕1, 2   

  1. 1. 广东省水利水电科学研究院,广东 广州 510610;2. 广东省岩土工程技术研究中心,广东 广州 510640;3. 中国科学院武汉岩土力学研究所 岩土力学与工程国家重点试验室,湖北 武汉 430071;4. 华南理工大学 土木与交通学院,广东 广州 510640
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-24 修回日期:2020-05-12 出版日期:2020-10-12 发布日期:2020-11-07
  • 通讯作者: 尹小涛,男,1974年生,博士,副研究员,主要从事悬索桥锚碇承载力方面的研究工作。E-mail: 278205456@qq.com E-mail:wangdongying910309@163.com
  • 作者简介:王东英,女,1991年生,博士,工程师,主要从事悬索桥锚碇承载力方面的研究工作。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No. 51778609,No. 5177082703);中国博士后科学基金(No. 2019M662827)。

Estimation method of ultimate bearing capacity of tunnel-type anchorage based on simplified mechanical model

WANG Dong-ying1, 2, 3, 4, TANG Hua3, YIN Xiao-tao3, YANG Guang-hua1, 2, 4, JIANG Yan1, 2   

  1. 1. Guangdong Research Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510610, China; 2. Guangdong Technical Research Center of Geotechnical Engineering, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510640, China; 3. State Key Laboratory of Geo-mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; 4. School of Civil Engineering & Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510640, China
  • Received:2019-12-24 Revised:2020-05-12 Online:2020-10-12 Published:2020-11-07
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51778609, 5177082703) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M662827).

摘要: 悬索桥隧道式锚碇的设计理念为锚碇夹持岩体协同承载,因而承载能力远超同体积的重力式锚碇。但因目前对围岩协同作用认识尚不充分,在当前隧道式锚碇设计中仍保守地忽略锚碇和岩体间的挤压效应。为弄清锚碇?岩体协同承载的机制,揭示隧道锚承载能力提高的本质,通过分析隧道式锚碇建设至成桥全过程受力,建立隧道锚的简化力学模型,并引用Mindlin应力解分析了荷载沿锚碇轴向的传递规律以及荷载产生的作用于锚碇?岩体间的挤压应力分布,最终给出了隧道式锚碇极限承载力的简化估算方法,并通过伍家岗大桥隧道锚工程实例分析了结果的合理性。所得结论主要有:锚碇?岩体界面力主要由锚碇自重和锚碇?岩体相互挤压产生;锚碇?岩体界面附加应力自后锚面向前锚面呈先增后减的变化趋势,在距后锚面约1/3L处达到应力峰值;以容许抗剪强度为破坏判据解得的伍家岗长江大桥隧道式锚碇的极限承载力为3 504 MN,约为16倍的设计荷载,与室内试验值基本吻合。

关键词: 隧道式锚碇, 协同承载机制, Mindlin应力解, 附加挤压应力, 极限承载力

Abstract: The design philosophy of suspension bridge tunnel-type anchorage is that anchorage and rock bear the bridge load together. As the cooperative bearing mechanism of anchorage and rock, its bearing capacity is much higher than that of gravity anchorage with the same volume. However, due to the insufficient understanding of the synergy of surrounding rock, the squeezing effect between the anchorage and rock mass is still conservatively ignored in the design of tunnel anchorage. In order to understand the mechanism of coordinated bearing between anchorage and rock mass, and reveal the essence of improving the bearing capacity of tunnel anchor, a simplified mechanical model of tunnel anchor was established by analyzing the whole process from construction to completion of the bridge. Mindlin stress solution was used to analyze the law of load transmission along the anchorage axis and the distribution of compressive stress between anchorage and rock mass caused by load. A simplified method for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of tunnel type anchorage was proposed. Then the recommend estimation method was successfully applied to Wujiagang suspension bridge project. The main conclusions are as follows: the interface force between anchorage and rock mass is mainly produced by the self weight of anchorage and the mutual extrusion of anchorage and rock mass; the additional stress at the interface between anchorage and rock mass increases first and then decreases from the rear anchor face to the front, and reaches the peak stress at about 1/3L away from the rear anchor surface; the ultimate bearing capacity of the tunnel anchorage of Wujiagang Yangtze River Bridge calculated by the allowable shear strength is 3 504 MN, about 16 times of the design load, which is basically consistent with the laboratory model test value.

Key words: tunnel-type anchorage, cooperative bearing mechanism, Mindlin stress solution, additional compressive stress, ultimate bearing capacity

中图分类号: 

  • TU 457
[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] 胡伟, 孟建伟, 姚琛, 雷勇, . 浅埋平板圆锚竖向拉拔极限承载力计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(9): 3049-3055.
[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] 杨学祥, 焦园发, 杨语驿, . 充气膨胀控制锚杆的研制与试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 869-876.
[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] 雷勇, 邓加政, 刘泽宇, 李君杰, 邹根. 考虑荷载位置偏移的空洞岩石地基极限承载力 计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(10): 3326-3331.
[7] 蒋万里, 朱国甫, 张杰, . 单桩承载力的一种直接动测法[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(10): 3500-3508.
[8] 穆锐, 浦少云, 黄质宏, 李永辉, 郑培鑫, 刘 旸, 刘 泽, 郑红超, . 土岩组合岩体中抗拔桩极限承载力的确定[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2825-2837.
[9] 王冬勇, 陈曦, 于玉贞, 吕彦楠, . 基于二阶锥规划有限元增量加载法的条形浅基础极限承载力分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4890-4896.
[10] 冯君, 王洋, 张俞峰, 黄林, 何长江, 吴红刚, . 玄武岩纤维与钢筋锚杆锚固性能现场对比试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(11): 4185-4193.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 张力霆,齐清兰,魏静,霍倩,周国斌. 淤填黏土固结过程中孔隙比的变化规律[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2935 -2939 .
[2] 张其一. 复合加载模式下地基失效机制研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 2940 -2944 .
[3] 张明义,刘俊伟,于秀霞. 饱和软黏土地基静压管桩承载力时间效应试验研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3005 -3008 .
[4] 刘振平,贺怀建,李 强,朱发华. 基于Python的三维建模可视化系统的研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3037 -3042 .
[5] 杜佐龙,黄茂松,李 早. 基于地层损失比的隧道开挖对临近群桩影响的DCM方法[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3043 -3047 .
[6] 吴 亮,钟冬望,卢文波. 空气间隔装药爆炸冲击荷载作用下混凝土损伤分析[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3109 -3114 .
[7] 周晓杰,介玉新,李广信1. 基于渗流和管流耦合的管涌数值模拟[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3154 -3158 .
[8] 李少龙,张家发,张 伟,肖 利. 表层土渗透系数空间变异与随机模拟研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3168 -3172 .
[9] 吴昌瑜,张 伟,李思慎,朱国胜. 减压井机械淤堵机制与防治方法试验研究[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3181 -3187 .
[10] 崔皓东,朱岳明. 二滩高拱坝坝基渗流场的反演分析[J]. , 2009, 30(10): 3194 -3199 .