岩土力学 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (5): 1672-1685.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2025.00348CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2025.00348

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

卸荷桩板挡墙力学性能及工作机制试验研究

杨瑞1,干飞1, 2,王寿红1,郑刚2,李美霖1,王宏1, 毕靖1,吴立城1,刘彪3,张元胤3   

  1. 1. 贵州大学 土木工程学院,贵州 贵阳 550025;2. 天津大学 建筑工程学院,天津 300072; 3. 贵州送变电有限责任公司,贵州 贵阳 550002
  • 收稿日期:2025-06-16 接受日期:2025-09-16 出版日期:2026-05-11 发布日期:2026-05-12
  • 通讯作者: 干飞,男,1987年生,博士,副教授,主要从事岩土力学方面的教学与研究工作。E-mail: fgan@gzu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:杨瑞,男,1999年生,硕士,主要从事桩基础研究。E-mail: 19199801620@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No. 52164001,No. 52568047)

Experimental study on mechanical behavior and working mechanism of unloading pile-sheet retaining walls

YANG Rui1, GAN Fei1, 2, WANG Shou-hong1, ZHENG Gang2, LI Mei-lin1, WANG Hong1, BI Jing1, WU Li-cheng1, LIU Biao3, ZHANG Yuan-yin3   

  1. 1. School of Civil Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang, Guizhou 550025, China; 2. School of Architectural Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China; 3. Guizhou Power Transmission and Transformation Limited Liability Company, Guiyang, Guizhou 550002, China
  • Received:2025-06-16 Accepted:2025-09-16 Online:2026-05-11 Published:2026-05-12
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52164001, 52568047).

摘要:

卸荷桩板挡墙是一种新型的填方边坡支挡结构,工程实践效果较好,但其力学性能及工作机制不清。开展了卸荷桩和悬臂桩的模型试验,分4层回填,前3层每层回填30 cm,最后1层回填10 cm;试验重点研究了两种桩体的土压力、内力及变形演化特征。结果表明:(1)回填完成时,悬臂桩桩顶水平位移达到81.76 mm,是卸荷桩14.99 mm的5.45倍。卸荷桩最大土压力为10.08 kPa,是悬臂桩15.18 kPa的66.40%,卸荷效应改变了土压力的分布形式及其大小。(2)桩身弯矩分布模式显著不同,悬臂桩呈“鱼腹式,最大弯矩为115.8  N·m;相反,卸荷桩呈“S”型分布,在卸荷平台处出现反弯点,最大负弯矩为−60.99  N·m。(3)卸荷桩板挡墙通过卸荷平台,可有效减小土压力和增大抗倾覆力矩,提高结构的抗滑移能力和整体稳定性,研究结果为卸荷桩板挡墙的工程应用提供了理论依据和技术支撑。

关键词: 卸荷桩板挡墙, 模型试验, 土压力, 内力, 桩身变形

Abstract:

The unloading pile-sheet retaining wall is a new type of support/retaining for embankment slopes and has demonstrated excellent performance in engineering applications. However, its mechanical behavior and operational mechanisms are still not fully understood. This study conducted model tests on unloading piles and cantilever piles. Backfilling was conducted in four stages: 30 cm for the first three layers and 10 cm for the final one. The tests focused on the evolution of earth pressure, internal forces, and deformation in both pile types. The results show that: 1) Upon completion of backfilling, the horizontal displacement at the top of the cantilever pile reaches 81.76 mm, which is 5.45 times that of the unloading pile (14.99 mm). The maximum earth pressure on the unloading pile is 10.08 kPa, accounting for 66.40% of the 15.18 kPa recorded on the cantilever pile. The unloading effect alters the distribution pattern and magnitude of earth pressure. 2) The bending moment distributions differ significantly. The cantilever pile exhibits a “fish-belly” pattern with a maximum moment of 115.8 N·m. In contrast, the unloading pile shows an “S-shaped” profile, featuring a pronounced point of contraflexure at the unloading platform and a maximum negative moment of −60.99 N·m. 3) Incorporating an unloading platform effectively reduces earth pressure and enhances the anti-overturning moment. These effects jointly improve sliding resistance and overall structural stability. These findings offer theoretical insights and technical guidance for the practical implementation of unloading pile-sheet retaining walls.

Key words: unloading pile-sheet retaining walls, model test, earth pressure, internal forces, pile deformation

中图分类号: TU 470
[1] 李世豪, 刘杰, 王锋, 雷兵兵, 王斌. 冻融循环下土工格室加筋土挡墙水热力响应机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(5): 1713-1727.
[2] 张昕, 张茹梦, 刘晨, 刘思宇, 郭博文. 循环荷载作用下螺旋锚桩动力响应特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(4): 1147-1159.
[3] 潘泓, 黄才穆, 骆冠勇, 彭斯格, 刘荣照, 曹洪. 富水复合砂层突涌破坏行为及孔压响应特征试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(4): 1171-1182.
[4] 刘红帅, 丁泊文, 宋东松, 李羿, 王永志. 柔性叠层剪切箱在干砂场地离心试验中的边界效应分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(4): 1219-1228.
[5] 杨俊鹏, 段晓沛, 张倩, 李博文, 汪益敏. 降雨条件下加筋改良软岩残积土排水性能试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(3): 882-892.
[6] 曹校勇, 刘瑞辉, 李建斐, 叶欣欣, 耿珺洋, 谭海星. 中硬岩地层人工地下储气硐室衬砌结构密封体系及模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(2): 426-436.
[7] 陈树理, 郭伟, 任宇晓, 陈伟. 软土夹层地基上的互锁式L型沉箱稳定性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(1): 49-60.
[8] 吴金标, 曾柳祁, 江益辉, 槐荣国, 曾程. 不同饱和度砂土中浅埋管道上拔抗力研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(1): 209-218.
[9] 徐杰, 张振光, 李海祥. 考虑空间土拱效应的非饱和地层圆形基坑围护结构侧向土压力计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(1): 245-254.
[10] 贾宝新, 袁庆雷. 注浆影响下隧道渗流场及最小覆土厚度修正研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2026, 47(1): 255-266.
[11] 蔡启航, 董学超, 郭明伟, 卢正, 徐安, 蒋凡, . 基于刃脚土压力的超大锚碇沉井基础下沉智能预测[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 377-388.
[12] 来志强, 白盛元, 陈林, 邹维列, 徐书岭, 赵连军, . 环式管袋堆场蓄淤脱水特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2805-2815.
[13] 黄大维, 卢文剑, 罗文俊, 余珏, . 盾构隧道同步注浆对砂土地层竖向位移与周围土压力影响试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2837-2846.
[14] 方薇, 吴润丰, 周春梅, . 基于包络壳模型的非饱和土朗肯被动土压力[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2885-2893.
[15] 卞海丁, 魏进, 王锦涛. 超大跨径管拱形钢波纹管涵洞的受力特性与土压力计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2532-2546.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!