岩土力学 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (6): 1731-1744.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2024.1095CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2024.1095

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

黏性土地基中水平条形锚板上拔承载力计算方法研究

胡伟1, 2,曾攀煜1, 2,王辉1, 2,刘顺凯2,陈秋南1, 2,PUIG DAMIANS I3   

  1. 1. 湖南科技大学 岩土工程稳定控制与健康监测湖南省重点实验室,湖南 湘潭 411201;2. 湖南科技大学 土木工程学院,湖南 湘潭 411201; 3. 加泰罗尼亚-巴塞罗那理工大学 土木工程学院,西班牙 巴塞罗那 08034
  • 收稿日期:2024-09-04 接受日期:2024-12-23 出版日期:2025-06-11 发布日期:2025-06-09
  • 作者简介:胡伟,男,1982年生,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事地基与基础工程方面的研究。E-mail: yilukuangben1982@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No.52178332,No.52478341)

Calculation method of uplift capacity of horizontal strip anchor plate in cohesive soil foundation

HU Wei1, 2, ZENG Pan-yu1, 2, WANG Hui1, 2, LIU Shun-kai2, CHEN Qiu-nan1, 2, PUIG DAMIANS I3   

  1. 1. Hunan Province Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Engineering Stability Control and Health Monitoring, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, China; 2. School of Civil Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, China; 3. School of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University of Catalonia-BarcelonaTech, Barcelona 08034, Spain
  • Received:2024-09-04 Accepted:2024-12-23 Online:2025-06-11 Published:2025-06-09
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52178332, 52478341).

摘要: 当前水平锚板上拔承载力计算方法的理论研究仅限于砂土地基和饱和软黏土地基,且存在需要人为区分浅埋、深埋类型的问题,尚无既适用于不同埋深,又适用于黏性土地基的承载力计算方法研究成果。基于数值模拟和理论分析方法对黏性土地基中水平条形锚板上拔极限承载时滑动面的刻画表征、力学模型和承载力计算方法等问题进行了研究,得出主要结论如下:(1)埋深比一定时,随着黏聚力的增大,滑动面趋于外扩;黏聚力一定时,随着埋深比的增大,滑动面则趋于内收;对于每一个埋深比(黏聚力),都存在一个相应的黏聚力(埋深比),滑动面在其两侧发生形态上的转化。(2)滑动面的演化可用一长短轴比随埋深比、土体力学参数变化的椭圆圆弧来刻画。长短轴比k随埋深比的增大而减小,随黏聚力的增大而增大,但几乎不受内摩擦角的影响,内摩擦角只决定滑动面起始处的初始角度,据此规律提出了长短轴比k和初始角度的计算公式。(3)结合滑动面形态倾向,根据埋深、椭圆顶点(或椭圆位置最高点)与锚板的位置关系分5种工况构建了黏性土地基中水平锚板的上拔极限承载力学模型,基于极限平衡分析推导建立了极限承载力计算方法。该方法无需人为引入临界埋深比区分浅埋与深埋,同时可考虑土体内摩擦角和黏聚力两个指标的变化。(4)在与其他4种方法对3个试验案例的计算对比中,所提出的承载力计算方法均取得了最好的计算效果,表现出良好的适用性。

关键词: 条形锚板, 黏性土, 滑动面, 力学模型, 上拔承载力

Abstract: At present, the theoretical research on the uplift capacity method of horizontal anchor plate is limited to sandy soil and saturated soft clay foundations, with challenges in artificially distinguishing shallow and deep buried types. There is no research result on the uplift capacity calculation method applicable to both different buried depths and cohesive soil foundation. This paper employs numerical simulations and theoretical analyses to address issues related to sliding surface characterization, mechanical model, and bearing capacity calculation method for horizontal strip anchor plates in cohesive soil foundations. The main conclusions are summarized as follows: (1) With a constant burial depth ratio, the sliding surface expands outward as soil cohesion increases. Conversely, with a constant cohesion, the sliding surface contracts as the burial depth ratio increases. For each burial depth ratio (or cohesion) value, there is a corresponding cohesion (or burial depth ratio) value where the sliding surface changes morphology. (2) The sliding surface evolution is described by an elliptic arc, with its axial ratio varying with the burial depth ratio and soil mechanical parameters. The ratio k decreases with the increase of buried depth ratio and increases with the increase of cohesion, while the internal friction angle minimally affects it, only determining the initial angle of the sliding surface. According to this law, a formula for calculating the ratio axial k and the initial angle is proposed. (3) Combined with the morphological tendency of the sliding surface, a mechanical model for the ultimate uplift capacity of horizontal anchor plate in cohesive soil foundation was developed. The model considers the relationship between buried depth, ellipse vertex (or the highest point of ellipse position) and anchor plate position under five working conditions. The ultimate uplift capacity calculation method was derived using ultimate equilibrium analysis. This method does not need to introduce the critical depth ratio to distinguish the buried type, and can consider the changes of internal friction angle and cohesion of soil. (4) Compared to four other methods in the calculation of three test cases, the uplift capacity calculation method proposed in this paper achieves the best calculation effect and demonstrates good applicability.

Key words: strip anchor plate, cohesive soil, slip surface, mechanical model, uplift capacity

中图分类号: TU476
[1] 李晓照, 闫怀蔚, 李连杰, 戚承志. 预拉脆性岩石动态直接拉伸断裂的宏细观力学模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 217-227.
[2] 周光远, 干飞, 郑刚, 周海祚, 王宏, 毕靖, 刘彪, 张元胤, . 基于土体变形的端承桩负摩阻力计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 930-942.
[3] 肖劲卿, 温松诚, 郭源, . 基于单孔冲刷测试的黏性土抗侵蚀性及各向异性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(1): 187-198.
[4] 王长虹, 魏永青, 张海东, 李飞. 地铁车站下水平冻结过程中冻胀的热−水−力耦合模型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(9): 2775-2785.
[5] 李晓照, 车行, 李海峰, 戚承志. 干湿循环脆性岩石直接拉伸断裂的宏细观力学模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(7): 1906-1916.
[6] 陈成, 吴勋, 孙中华, 张先伟, 王勇, 张军杰, 余颂, . 基于弹黏塑性模型的部分排水柱孔扩张分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(11): 3259-3270.
[7] 崔金虎, 王路君, 叶智刚, 燕秉法, 黄家晟, 朱斌, . 循环温度荷载下高温管道-软土地基相互作用模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(11): 3286-3294.
[8] 胡江, 李星, . 深挖方膨胀土边坡时空变形特征分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(10): 3071-3080.
[9] 桂跃, 谢正鹏, 高玉峰, . 有机质对黏性土热传导系数的影响与机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(S1): 154-162.
[10] 胡伟, 王辉, 姚琛, 郝冬雪, 史旦达, . 砂土中水平矩形锚板竖向拉拔承载全域内三维统一力学模型与承载力计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(6): 1811-1825.
[11] 汪北方, 蒋嘉祺, 刘学生, 梁冰, 张晶. 浅埋厚松散层薄基岩综采工作面开采覆岩切落体结构分析及应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(10): 3011-3021.
[12] 张文莲, 孙晓云, 陈勇, 金申熠, . 基于岩体抗压强度折减的边坡稳定性分析方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(S2): 607-615.
[13] 杨肖锋, 鲁祖德, 陈从新, 孙朝燚, 刘轩廷, . 板裂结构顺层岩质边坡滑移−弯曲破坏 机制的力学模型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(S1): 258-266.
[14] 史旦达, 俞快, 毛逸瑶, 原媛, 郝冬雪, 胡伟, . 松砂中双叶片螺旋锚上拔承载 及土体变形特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(11): 3059-3072.
[15] 张恒志, 徐长节, 何寨兵, 黄展军, 何小辉, . 基于离散元方法的不同挡墙变位模式下有 限土体主动土压力研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(1): 257-267.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!