岩土力学 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (8): 2547-2558.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2024.1184CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2024.1184

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于极限分析理论的悬索桥重力锚垂直齿坎抗滑力分析

李小刚1,武守信2, 3,冯君2, 3   

  1. 1. 中国电建集团华东勘测设计研究院有限公司,浙江 杭州 311122;2. 西南交通大学 土木工程学院,四川 成都 610031; 3. 西南交通大学 桥梁智能与绿色建造全国重点实验室,四川 成都 611756
  • 收稿日期:2024-09-24 接受日期:2024-10-29 出版日期:2025-08-11 发布日期:2025-08-17
  • 通讯作者: 武守信,男,1966年生,博士,副教授,主要从事大跨度桥梁基础工程和岩土材料本构关系的研究。Email: swu@swjtu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:李小刚,男,1975生,本科,正高级工程师,主要从事大跨度桥梁设计、研究工作。E-mail: li_xg2@hdec.com
  • 基金资助:
    中国电建集团华东勘测设计研究院有限公司重大科技项目(No. KY2019-JT-22)。

Analysis of slide-resistance of vertical subgrade steps for gravity-type anchorages of suspension bridges based on limit analysis theory

LI Xiao-gang1, WU Shou-xin2, 3, FENG Jun2, 3   

  1. 1. PowerChina Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311122, China; 2. School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, China; 3. State Key Laboratory of Bridge Intelligent and Green Construction, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611756, China
  • Received:2024-09-24 Accepted:2024-10-29 Online:2025-08-11 Published:2025-08-17
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the PowerChina Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited Major Research Project (KY2019-JT-22).

摘要: 针对悬索桥齿坎式重力锚抗滑稳定性,运用理想刚塑性平面应变问题滑移线场理论,推导了岩土体内应力状态达到Mohr-Coulomb破坏准则时的塑性滑移线微分方程。根据极限分析上下限定理,提出了垂直齿坎抗滑力上下限解析解。与Rankine被动土压力不同,上下限解析解考虑了岩土体顶部锚碇自重压力以及齿坎与岩土体之间的摩擦力。与有限元分析结果的比较表明,单级齿坎实际抗滑力介于上下限解析解之间,且高出下限解约18%。实际齿坎破坏时的滑移面通过锚碇齿坎前端,且齿坎水平长度越大,抗滑力越大。下限解可用于对齿坎最小抗滑力的偏安全估算。多级齿坎的总抗滑力上下限可以分别表达为单级齿坎抗滑力上下限值之和。然而,由于重力锚的刚性旋转以及地基的偏心受压,多级齿坎的整体抗滑力并不能完全发挥,而是主要来自于第1级齿坎。接近最大荷载时,第1级齿坎承担的抗滑力占总抗滑力的80%以上,第2级以上齿坎的抗滑作用未能充分发挥。分析表明,多级齿坎重力锚抗滑力下限高于单纯依靠摩擦作用的抗滑力。考虑垂直齿坎抗滑作用后,锚碇抗滑稳定性系数提高了大约70%,而多级齿坎整体抗滑力下限远高于主缆极限水平拉力。实际设计中,可偏安全地根据第1级和第2级齿坎的抗滑力之和估算多级齿坎抗滑力。

关键词: 悬索桥, 重力锚, 抗滑力, 齿坎, 极限分析

Abstract: In order to find the slide-resistant capability of the subgrade steps in gravity-type anchorages of suspension bridges, the slip-line theory for plane strain problem of perfect plasticity is applied to derive the differential equations of the slip-lines for geotechnical materials satisfying Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Then, upper and lower limits of the slide-resistance of the subgrade step are developed by using the theorem of limit analysis, unlike the Rankine passive earth pressure, the proposed method takes account of the vertical pressure on the top face of the step, caused by the self-weight of the anchorage, and the friction between anchorage and the subgrade. Comparison with the finite element solutions shows that the actual slide-resistance lies between the lower and upper limits, and the resistance is greater than the lower limit by about 18%. At failure, the slip-band passes through the front end of the anchorage step; and the longer the horizontal length of the step, the higher the slide-resistance. Thus, the lower bound solution can be used to safely estimate the minimum slide-resistance of the subgrade step. The upper and lower limits of the slide-resistance of a multi-stepped subgrade can be expressed, respectively, as the summations of those values from constituent steps. However, due to the rigid rotation of the anchorage and the eccentric compression on the subgrade top, not all of the steps come into full play, and instead most slide-resistance comes from the first subgrade step. When it is near to the maximum load, the first subgrade step takes approximately 80% of the total slide-resistance, with remaining subgrade steps almost quitting work. It is shown that the lower limit of the slide-resistance of the multi-stepped anchorage is higher than maximum frictional force between anchorage and subgrade. Incorporation of the slide-resistance of the vertical step make the anti-slide stability factor of the anchorage increase by about 70%, and the actual slide-resistance of the entire multi-stepped subgrade is much greater than the horizontal component of the ultimate cable tension. In design stage, the slide-resistance of the multi-stepped subgrade can be estimated safely as the sum of those from the first and the second subgrades.

Key words: suspension bridge, gravity-type anchorage, slide-resistance, subgrade step, limit analysis

中图分类号: U 448.25;TU 470+.3
[1] 杨明云, 陈川, 赖莹, 陈云敏. 串联锚在黏土中的三向受荷承载力分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 582-590.
[2] 娄旭龙, 张泽瑞, 孔德琼, 陈星潮, 朱斌, . 深海重型管道管土相互作用大变形极限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3234-3242.
[3] 雷国平, 吴泽雄, 苏栋, 莫烨强, 程马遥, . 考虑桩身材料非线性的微型抗滑桩计算p-y[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 337-348.
[4] 石修松, 周高涨, 刘磊磊, . 基于非线性Hvorslev面的超固结土层隧道掌子面稳定性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(9): 2595-2610.
[5] 戴北冰, 袁新, 周锡文, 刘锋涛, . 考虑间断速度场的光滑有限元极限分析上限法[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(9): 2849-2858.
[6] 孙锐, 阳军生, 张庆贺, 杨峰, . 基于网格自适应加密策略的隧道稳定性三维极限分析下限有限元法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(4): 1256-1264.
[7] 冯嵩, 郑颖人, 高红, . 岩土常规三轴Drucker-Prager准则[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(10): 2919-2928.
[8] 朱克文, 俞剑, 黄茂松, . 饱和黏土中抗拔桩上限承载力分析及土塞效应[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(7): 1995-2004.
[9] 雷勇, 陈于斯, 谭豪, 李鹏甲, 刘运思, 于艺林, . 下伏空洞桥梁群桩桩端岩层极限承载力计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(12): 3339-3348.
[10] 王祖乐, 孔德琼, 杜越明, 朱斌, . 岩土工程连续极限分析方法拓展与验证[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(12): 3531-3540.
[11] 李见飞. 抗滑桩加固三维复杂边坡抗震设计的 新方法——拟动力法[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(S1): 275-285.
[12] 卢应发, 胡鹏, 钟瑶, 张玉芳, 江俊杰, . 基于边坡渐进破坏特征的控制设计 ——以湖北省十堰市布袋营边坡为例[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(8): 2277-2286.
[13] 李雨浓, 刘畅, 王立伟, . 地震效应下三维非均质土坡稳定性极限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(6): 1493-1502.
[14] 周锡文, 刘锋涛, 戴北冰, 张澄博, 张金鹏, . 基于混合常应力−光滑应变单元的极限分析方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(6): 1660-1670.
[15] 谭廷震, 黄茂松, 刘奕晖, 王浩然, 张中杰, . 基于块体剪流组合机构的黏土基坑抗隆起 稳定性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(4): 909-917.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!