岩土力学 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (2): 645-654.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2019.0443

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

有效应力法和有效固结压力法在预压地基 强度计算中的应用

涂园1, 2,王奎华1, 2,周建1, 2,胡安峰1, 2   

  1. 1. 浙江大学 滨海和城市岩土工程研究中心,浙江 杭州 310058;2. 浙江大学 浙江省城市地下空间开发工程技术研究中心,浙江 杭州 310058
  • 收稿日期:2019-03-04 修回日期:2019-05-14 出版日期:2020-02-11 发布日期:2020-02-12
  • 作者简介:涂园,男,1994年生,博士研究生,主要从事软土地基处理和桩基动力学理论和测试方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No. 51778572)。

Application of effective stress method and effective consolidation stress method for strength calculation in preloading ground

TU Yuan1, 2, WANG Kui-hua1, 2, ZHOU Jian1, 2, HU An-feng1, 2   

  1. 1. Research Center of Coastal and Urban Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China; 2. Engineering Research Center of Urban Underground Development Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China
  • Received:2019-03-04 Revised:2019-05-14 Online:2020-02-11 Published:2020-02-12
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51778572).

摘要: 计算预压地基抗剪强度的现行规范公式是基于土体不等向固结过程推导而来的,理论上并不适用于含有等向固结过程的预压地基。为此,分析现有强度增长理论(有效应力法和有效固结压力法)的计算原理,基于有效固结压力法并结合不同类型预压土体的固结过程,推导了计算预压地基抗剪强度的新公式;从理论分析的角度讨论了规范公式和新公式应用于真空预压和联合预压时的计算结果,最后结合某联合预压地基处理工程检验了规范公式和新公式的适用性,并对比分析了计算强度与实测强度的差异。结果表明:有效固结压力法可以考虑土体在等向固结和不等向固结中强度增长的差异,规范公式理论上仅适用于堆载预压地基的强度计算;规范公式对真空预压和联合预压地基强度的理论计算值均小于所提出的新公式,两者相对误差的大小仅与土体内摩擦角 有关,且随 的增大而增大;在某联合预压地基处理工程中,新公式的强度预测值相较于规范公式与实测值更为接近,能更加准确地反映地基土强度增长规律。根据不同预压类型来选取相应的强度计算公式,这对于实际工程计算有一定的参考意义。

关键词: 预压地基, 抗剪强度, 有效固结压力法, 有效应力法, 真空和堆载联合预压

Abstract: The standard formula for calculating the soil shear strength of the preloading ground under anisotropic consolidation is not applicable to isotropic consolidation process. In this paper, a new formula was proposed to calculate the soil shear strength of the preloading ground under isotropic consolidation process. This new formula was derived by analyzing the calculation principle of the two existing fundamental methods, which are effective stress method (ESM) and effective consolidation stress method (ECSM), respectively. Then the results that calculated by the new formula and the standard formula applied to vacuum preloading and vacuum combined surcharge preloading were theoretically discussed and compared. Finally, the applicability of the new formula and the standard formula were tested by the practical engineering, and the difference between the calculated strength and the measured strength were also analyzed. The results show that the ECSM can be applied to the preloading ground under both the isotropic consolidation and the anisotropic consolidation, while standard formula is only applicable to surcharge preloading ground theoretically. The values of soil shear strength of the vacuum preloading and vacuum combined surcharge preloading that calculated by the standard formula are smaller than those calculated by the new formula. The relative difference of the two calculation values only relates to the friction angle and increases as the friction angle increases. In the vacuum combined surcharge preloading treatment project, the shear strength prediction values by the new formulas are closer to the measured values than those by the standard formulas. The result of this study can be potentially helpful for calculating different kinds of preloading grounds in practice.

Key words: preloading ground, shear strength, effective consolidation stress method, effective stress method, vacuum combined surcharge preloading

中图分类号: TU 431
[1] 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.
[2] 劳国峰, 阳军生, 谢亦朋, 汤冲, 许志鹏, . 基于骨架结构指标的连续级配颗粒土峰值抗剪强度模型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2459-2470.
[3] 骆祚森, 曹旭, 邓华锋, 杨旺, 李建林, 杨超, . 法向动载对不同含水状态灰岩节理面剪切力学特性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1799-1810.
[4] 欧阳淼, 张红日, 王桂尧, 邓人睿, 郭鸥, 汪磊, 高游, . 基于响应面法的生物基质改良膨胀土配比优化研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1368-1378.
[5] 曹苏南, 李春红, 陈远兵, 费康, . 循环荷载作用下砂土−结构物仿生 界面剪切特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 821-832.
[6] 吴学震, 夏亚歆, 李大勇, 游先辉, 单宁康, 肖贞科, 陈祥, . 新型劲性水泥土组合桩内界面抗剪强度试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 467-478.
[7] 王军, 张凯宇, 陈晟凯, 秦伟, 倪俊峰, 高紫阳, 张一帆, . 爆破挤淤法中炸药埋深对土体参数影响的模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(1): 123-132.
[8] 刘吉福. 排水固结堤坝稳定分析新方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 106-114.
[9] 张雅琴, 杨平, 张婷, 韩琳亮. 含盐量及冻融条件对冻融氯盐粉质黏土静动强度特性影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 157-166.
[10] 张化进, 吴顺川, 李兵磊, 赵宇松, . 基于高斯过程回归的岩石抗剪强度参数不确定性估测[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 415-423.
[11] 朱俊宇, 裴利华, 桂跃, . 含有机质土抗剪强度再认识——基于土壤有机质赋存形态的认知[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 451-460.
[12] 冉宇玲, 张文博, 柏巍, 孔令伟, 周丽娜, 樊恒辉, . 基于孔内剪切试验的游离氧化铁对红黏土抗剪强度影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(9): 2573-2582.
[13] 冯帅, 陈盼, 周家作, 韦昌富, . 赋存环境对含甲烷水合物沉积物力学特性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(7): 1987-1999.
[14] 张季如, 陈敬鑫, 王 磊, 彭伟珂. 三轴剪切过程中排水条件对钙质砂颗粒破碎、变形和强度特性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(2): 375-384.
[15] 杨泰华, 黄友琦, 刘滨, 康永水, 耿志, 周秀斌, . 砂质充填型节理剪切力学行为试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(12): 3645-3657.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!