岩土力学 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 1003-1011.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2020.1373

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

悬索桥隧道式锚碇夹持效应的试验研究

王东英1, 2, 3, 4,尹小涛3,杨光华1, 2, 4   

  1. 1. 广东省水利水电科学研究院,广东 广州 510610;2. 广东省岩土工程技术研究中心,广东 广州 510640;3. 中国科学院武汉岩土力学研究所 岩土力学与工程国家重点试验室,湖北 武汉430071;4. 华南理工大学 土木与交通学院,广东 广州 510640
  • 收稿日期:2020-09-13 修回日期:2020-10-19 出版日期:2021-04-12 发布日期:2021-04-25
  • 通讯作者: 尹小涛,男,1974年生,博士,副研究员,主要从事悬索桥锚碇承载力方面的研究工作。E-mail: xtyin@whrsm.ac.cn E-mail: wangdongying910309@163.com
  • 作者简介:王东英,女,1991年生,博士,工程师,主要从事工程稳定性分析方面的研究工作
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No. 51778152,No. 51778609);中国博士后科学基金(No. 2019M662827)。

Experimental study of the clamping effect of the suspension bridge tunnel-type anchorage

WANG Dong-ying1, 2, 3, 4, YIN Xiao-tao3, YANG Guang-hua1, 2, 4   

  1. 1. Guangdong Research Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510610, China; 2. Guangdong Technical Research Center of Geotechnical Engineering, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510640, China; 3. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; 4. School of Civil Engineering & Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510640, China
  • Received:2020-09-13 Revised:2020-10-19 Online:2021-04-12 Published:2021-04-25
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51778152, 51778609) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M662827).

摘要: 隧道式锚碇的夹持效应机制及其破坏形态的研究尚不充分,不利于隧道式锚碇设计理论的优化。通过开展锚碇的二维室内模型试验,分析了锚碇和岩体联合承载的过程、机制及锚碇自岩体内拔出时的破坏形态,并针对锚碇的楔形角和埋深等几何要素对锚碇的承载力和破坏特征的影响做了简单分析,在一定程度上揭示了隧道式锚碇夹持效应的本质。所得结论主要有:(1)锚碇加速非线性移动挤压土体产生附加应力,激发夹持效应发挥抗力作用,调动周围岩土体联合承载。(2)隧道式锚碇的承载力由自重效应和夹持效应组成,自重效应不足以平衡主缆荷载时,夹持效应才发挥作用。从经济和安全角度,应对锚碇的体型进行合理设计,使得夹持效应得到有效发挥。(3)锚碇的楔形角影响锚碇的极限承载力,设计时应通过优化分析确定优势角。(4)锚碇的埋深越大,承载力越大,两者基本成线性关系。在实际工程中应把握施工难易性、经济性及承载力之间的关系综合确定埋深。(5)锚碇裂纹的产生和发展与锚碇及岩体的应力位移响应具有相关性。锚碇与土体相对静止时无裂纹产生,破坏形态基本形成的时间与锚碇加速非线性位移阶段相对应。

关键词: 隧道式锚碇, 自重效应, 夹持效应, 承载力, 破坏形态

Abstract: Studies on the clamping effect and failure mode of the tunnel-type anchorage are still insufficient, leading to many difficulties in the optimization of design philosophy of the tunnel-type anchorage. In this work, the bearing characteristics, bearing mechanics and the failure mode of the tunnel-type anchorage were analyzed through 2D laboratory model tests. Besides, the influences of wedged angle and burial depth on the bearing capacity and failure mode were studied as well. This work reveals the essence of the clamping effect of the suspension bridge tunnel-type anchorage to some extent. Main conclusions are given as follow: First, additional stress is generated when the anchorage moves with a crescent accelerated velocity and squeezes the surrounding rock. The clamping effect results in resistance and the surrounding rock and soil start to bear the main cable load jointly. Second, the bearing capacity of the tunnel-type anchorage is contributed by gravity and the clamping effect. The clamping effect will play a role only when the gravity effect fails to balance the main cable load. From the view of economy and security, it is necessary to rationally design the size of the anchorage to ensure the role of the clamping effect. Third, the bearing capacity of the tunnel-type anchorage is also influenced by the wedged angle and it is necessary to optimize the wedged angle to obtain the maximum bearing capacity. Fourth, the bearing capacity of the tunnel-type anchorage increases linearly with the burial depth. Thus, in the actual project, the burial depth should be determined according to the bearing capacity, the construction difficulty, as well as economy. Finally, the initiation and propagation of the cracks is associated with the response of the stress and displacement. There is no crack initiation when the anchorage and surrounding rock are relatively static. The formation time of the failure mode corresponds to the nonlinear displacement stage of anchorage acceleration.

Key words: tunnel-type anchorage, gravity effect, clamping effect, bearing capacity, failure mode

中图分类号: TU 457
[1] 鄂天龙, 崔强, 孙志亮, 冯杨州, 李冰臻, 缪栋, 杨健, 苗田, . 新型短柱斜桩复合基础结构优化与承载机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2955-2966.
[2] 王长虹, 蔡德雍, 胡子轩, 杨天笑. 扰动状态下束浆挤扩桩抗拔机制与计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2980-2994.
[3] 谢宏丽, 周志军, 任玉波, 田叶青, 范经灿. 大直径预应力钢筋混凝土管桩群桩的水平承载性能[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2573-2585.
[4] 张雨坤, 张恒, 李大勇, 项乾, . 桩靴贯入及拔出对邻近吸力基础运动规律和水平承载力的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2325-2338.
[5] 陈志波, 陈峰, 翁洋, 曹光伟, 曾旭明, 潘生贵, 杨辉, . 考虑土塞效应的大直径钢管桩竖向承载力计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2224-2236.
[6] 胡伟, 曾攀煜, 王辉, 刘顺凯, 陈秋南, PUIG DAMIANS I, . 黏性土地基中水平条形锚板上拔承载力计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1731-1744.
[7] 柴红涛, 文松霖, . 组合荷载作用下桩基承载力屈服包络线特性离心模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1556-1562.
[8] 刘润, 许泽伟, 陈广思, 梁超. 饱和软黏土中回型沉垫基础竖向承载特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 381-388.
[9] 杨立. 平板载荷试验数值分析及承载力判定标准研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 723-730.
[10] 赵崇熙, 徐超, 王清明, 张胜, 李昊煜, . 土工合成材料加筋土桥台极限承载力的离心载荷试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(6): 1643-1650.
[11] 胡伟, 李砥柱, 林志, 冯世进, 黄勇祥, . 双锚片螺旋锚倾斜拉拔承载特性与承载力计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(6): 1661-1674.
[12] 颜然, 孔纲强, 于江华, . 砂土地基中钻进比对螺旋桩安装性能和抗拔承载性能的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(6): 1778-1788.
[13] 董恒年, 孔纲强, 周杨, 杨庆, . 考虑系泊点深度的单点系泊系统锚桩水平承载性能理论分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(5): 1356-1364.
[14] 熊根, 付栋康, 朱斌, 赖莹, . 软黏土中吸力锚承载特性离心试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(5): 1472-1480.
[15] 王长虹, 杨天笑, 马铖涛, 沈洋. 束浆挤扩钢管桩竖向抗拔承载力计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(3): 846-856.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!