岩土力学 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4): 1386-1400.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2025.00236CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2025.00236

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

两种不同桩端形式PRC桩竖向承载性能及影响因素研究

田叶青1,王苗苗1,周志军1,任玉波1,谢宏丽1,朱林楦2,徐天宇3   

  1. 1.长安大学 公路学院,陕西 西安710064;2.陕西交控混凝土有限公司, 陕西 西安710016; 3.温州理工学院 建筑与能源工程学院,浙江 温州325027
  • 收稿日期:2025-04-25 接受日期:2025-07-09 出版日期:2026-04-13 发布日期:2026-04-16
  • 通讯作者: 周志军,男,1975年生,博士,教授,主要从事公路桥梁桩基础承载性能及耐久性防护研究。E-mail: zhouzhijun@chd.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:田叶青,女,1994年生,博士研究生,主要从事公路桥梁桩基础承载性能及耐久性防护研究。E-mail: 1322516181@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No.52178310);陕西省交通厅项目(No.23-72K)。

Vertical bearing characteristics and influencing factors of PRC piles with two distinct end configurations

TIAN Ye-qing1, WANG Miao-miao1, ZHOU Zhi-jun1, REN Yu-bo1, XIE Hong-li1, ZHU Lin-xuan2, XU Tian-yu3   

  1. 1. School of Highway, Chang’an University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710064, China; 2. Shaanxi Jiaokong Concrete Co., Ltd., Xi’an, Shaanxi 710016, China; 3. College of Architecture and Energy Engineering, Wenzhou University of Technology, Wenzhou, Zhejiang 325027, China
  • Received:2025-04-25 Accepted:2025-07-09 Online:2026-04-13 Published:2026-04-16
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52178310) and the Shaanxi Provincial Transportation Department Project (23-72K).

摘要: 由于沉桩过程中形成的土塞,与闭口预制混合配筋混凝土(precast hybrid reinforced concrete,简称PRC)桩相比,开口桩呈现不同竖向承载性能。为定量评估差异,制桩时嵌入光纤光栅传感器,并对P1~P6桩的两种桩端形式和桩长的进行竖向静载试验(static load tests,简称SLTs)。通过数值模拟验证P1~P3桩的试验结果,并进行桩长优化和关键几何参数对竖向承载力影响研究。结果表明:在相同桩长和地层条件下,开口桩的极限承载力(ultimate bearing capacity,简称UBC)、桩顶沉降和回弹率均低于闭口桩,较长的开口桩相比较短开口桩呈现更大沉降和回弹。优化分析表明:闭口桩可由40 m缩短至35 m。保持混凝土体积不变,D800t130型桩抗压系数最高(0.42),材料利用率最高(783.1 kN/m³),PRC桩极限承载力和端阻比随桩径增大而增大。闭口桩桩径对轴力和侧摩阻力影响显著,壁厚对桩端阻力影响较小,但对桩侧摩阻力影响较大。而开口桩轴力和侧摩阻力均对直径和壁厚均更加敏感,内侧摩阻力主要集中在土塞端以上2倍桩径范围内,但强度较小,土塞高径比(h/D)对竖向承载性能有显著影响。与闭口桩相比,开口桩侧摩阻力减小,折减系数在0.78~0.92之间。而当直径从600 mm增加到800 mm时,硬塑粉质黏土中开口桩桩端承载性能优于闭口桩。

关键词: PRC桩, 竖向承载性能, 模拟, 几何参数, 两端桩端形式, 桩径, 壁厚

Abstract: Open-ended precast hybrid reinforced concrete (PRC) piles exhibit distinct vertical bearing behavior compared to closed-ended counterparts, primarily due to soil plug formation during installation. To quantitatively assess this difference, fiber bragg grating sensors were embedded during pile fabrication, and vertical static load tests (SLTs) were conducted on piles P1–P6 with two end configurations and pile lengths. Experimental results for piles P1–P3 were validated through numerical simulations, and length optimization was performed. A parametric study was conducted to evaluate the effects of key geometric parameters on vertical bearing capacity. Results showed that, under identical pile length and stratigraphic conditions, open-ended piles exhibited lower ultimate bearing capacity (UBC), top settlement, and rebound rate than closed-ended piles. However, longer open-ended piles demonstrated significantly greater settlement and rebound than shorter counterparts. Optimization analysis indicated that the closed-ended pile could be reduced from 40 m to 35 m. With constant concrete volume, the D800t130 pile type yielded optimal performance, achieving the highest compressive coefficient (0.42) and material utilization rate (783.1 kN/m³). Both UBC and end resistance ratio increased with pile diameter. For closed-ended piles, diameter significantly influenced axial force distribution and side resistance, while wall thickness had minimal effect on end resistance but reduced side resistance. In contrast, open-ended piles exhibited greater sensitivity to both diameter and wall thickness in terms of axial force and lateral resistance. Inner wall friction was concentrated within twice pile diameters above the soil plug base, although its magnitude remained low. The height-to-diameter ratio (h/D) of the soil plug critically affected vertical bearing behavior. Compared to closed-ended piles, open-ended piles showed reduced lateral friction, with reduction coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.92. Notably, when diameter increased from 600 mm to 800 mm, open-ended piles outperformed as closed-ended piles in stiff plastic silty clay.

Key words: PRC pile, vertical bearing characteristics, simulation, geometric parameters, two end configurations, pile diameter, wall thickness

中图分类号: TU 473
[1] 黄浚鸣, 赵向阳, 马洪岭, 王磊, 张佳敏. 盐穴压缩空气储能耦合沉渣储热的综合利用可行性分析研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(2): 373-382.
[2] 张桂民, 孙文卿, 朱泽凡, 苏永康, 朱旭聪. 施工缝隙对压气储能硐室钢衬受力的影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(2): 485-496.
[3] 张波波, 马芹永, . 氧化石墨烯和纳米二氧化硅增强模拟月壤地聚合物的制备及性能研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(2): 607-626.
[4] 王志良, 肖智桓, 申林方, 李邵军. 基于物理信息神经网络岩石裂隙渗流传热耦合作用机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(2): 703-716.
[5] 孙志亮, 邵敏, 王叶晨梓, 刘忠, 任伟中, 柏巍, 李朋, . 管道破损诱发地面沉降细观模拟与影响因素分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 507-518.
[6] 喻昭晟, 陈晓斌, 周雨晴, 吕鑫龙, . 红层软岩崩解面释放率与崩解特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 285-296.
[7] 张奇, 王驹, 刘江峰, 曹胜飞, 谢敬礼, 成建峰, . 热-水-力多场耦合下高放废物处置库核心处置单元间距设计研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2626-2638.
[8] 朱先祥, 张琦, 马俊鹏, 王永军, 孟凡贞, . 浆−水置换效应下含水砂层渗透注浆扩散机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1957-1966.
[9] 梁庆国, 李景, 张崇辉, 刘彤彤, 孙志涛, . 基底均匀膨胀作用下黄土−泥岩复合地层隧道衬砌力学响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1811-1824.
[10] 武孝天, 姚仰平, 魏然, 崔文杰. 基于统一硬化模型的隧道施工引发土体变形数值模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 1013-1024.
[11] 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.
[12] 张寻龙, 曹成勇, 陈湘生, . 土−岩复合地层超深圆形竖井开挖变形特性案例研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(12): 3924-3933.
[13] 张凌博, 孙宜松, 程星磊, 郭群录, 赵川, 刘京红. 基于损伤能量耗散的三维土体切削破坏面表征方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3626-3636.
[14] 张昕晔, 刘志伟, 翁效林, 李铉聪, 赵建崇, 刘小光. 上砂下黏复合地层隧道开挖面稳定性及破坏模式研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3637-3648.
[15] 吴迪, 陈嵘, 孔纲强, 牛庚, 缪玉松, 王振兴. 冷-热循环温度下桥梁能量排桩热-力响应特性现场试验与数值模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3649-3660.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!