岩土力学 ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (10): 2898-2910.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2021.1374

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

超大规模深基坑工程现场抽水试验及土层 变形规律研究

兰韡1, 2,王卫东3,常林越1   

  1. 1. 华建集团上海地下空间与工程设计研究院,上海 200000;2. 上海申元岩土工程有限公司,上海 200040; 3. 华东建筑设计研究院有限公司,上海 200002
  • 收稿日期:2021-08-18 修回日期:2022-03-10 出版日期:2022-10-19 发布日期:2022-10-18
  • 作者简介:兰韡,男,1985年生,工程硕士,高级工程师,从事岩土工程、地下水综合治理、地基基础工程、污染场地治理等领域的设计、施工、咨询和管理工作。

Field pumping test and soil layer deformation analysis of super large scale deep foundation pit engineering

LAN Wei1, 2, WANG Wei-dong3, CHANG Lin-yue1   

  1. 1. Shanghai Underground Space Research Institute in Arcplus China Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200000, China; 2. Shanghai Shenyuan Geotechnical Engineering Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200040, China; 3. East China Architectural & Design Institute Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200002 China
  • Received:2021-08-18 Revised:2022-03-10 Online:2022-10-19 Published:2022-10-18

摘要: 承压水抽降是深基坑工程面临的主要难题之一。群井抽水试验是合理分析基坑工程承压水水位降深和地表沉降的主要手段,具有重要意义。以上海某航站楼区域大规模深基坑现场抽水试验为例,结合场地工程地质和水文地质条件,对群井抽水过程中承压水水位变化及地表沉降进行分析,探究承压水水位降深对地层压缩及地表沉降的影响规律。结果表明:300 m监测范围内,地面沉降最大值为104.9 mm,最大水位降深为 21.85 m,每米水位降深(即单位水位降深)引起的地面沉降量约为5 mm;⑦层的最大土层压缩量为68.4 mm,单位水位降深引起的压缩量约为 3 mm;单位水位降深引起的地面沉降量随距离增加有减小的趋势,距离中心40~310 m范围内,单位水位降深引起的地面沉降量为4.22~1.17 mm。

关键词: 深基坑, 承压水, 群井抽水, 水位降深, 沉降, 压缩量

Abstract: Pumping of confined water is one of the main problems faced by deep foundation pit engineering. And group well pumping test is the main method to reasonably analyze the drawdown of confined water and surface settlement around foundation pit engineering, which is of great significance. A large-scale deep foundation pit pumping test in the area of a terminal in Shanghai was selected as an example in this study. Combined with the engineering geology and hydrogeological conditions of the site, the confined water level change and surface settlement during the group well pumping tests were analyzed. The influence of the drawdown of confined water on soil layer compression and ground settlement were investigated. The results showed that within the monitoring range of 300 m, the maximum ground settlement was 104.9 mm, the maximum drawdown was 21.85 m, and the ground settlement caused by the drawdown per meter was about 5mm. The maximum compression of 7th soil layer was 68.4 mm, and the compression caused by one meter of drawdown was about 3 mm. The ratio of settlement to drawdown tended to decrease with the increase of distance, and within the range of 40−310 m from the center, the ratio of settlement to drawdown was 4.22−1.17 mm.

Key words: deep foundation pit, confined water, group well pumping, drawdown, settlement, compression.

中图分类号: TU 46
[1] 张治国, 陈胤吉, 朱正国, 魏纲, 孙苗苗, . 软土小曲率盾构隧道开挖诱发黏弹性地层沉降的解析解[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 309-321.
[2] 潘申鑫, 蒋关鲁, 袁胜洋, 刘先峰, 何梓雷, 曹丽君, 周诗广, . 高速铁路整体刚性面板加筋土挡墙地震作用下服役性能研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 519-530.
[3] 鲍树峰, 董志良, 莫海鸿, 张劲文, 于立婷, 刘攀, 刘晓强, 侯明勋, . 浮泥−流泥静态间歇沉降与低压固结沉降计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2763-2772.
[4] 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.
[5] 宋牧原, 杨明辉, 陈伟, 卢贤锥, . 基于自注意力-循环神经网络模型的盾构引发的土体沉降预测[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2613-2625.
[6] 崔纪飞, 吴祯祯, 李林, 饶平平, . 考虑土体流变的新旧混合群桩变刚度调平研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1897-1906.
[7] 杨校辉, 赵子毅, 郭楠, 钱豹, 朱彦鹏, . 横观各向同性非饱和黄土蠕变特性及沉降预测[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1489-1500.
[8] 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.
[9] 杨耀辉, 辛公锋, 陈育民, 李召峰, . 排水桩-网复合地基处置可液化路堤地基的振动台试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 178-186.
[10] 肖荣军, 马威, 李锋, 袁丽云. 一种深基坑排桩支护结构内力位移矩阵分析法 解答及工程应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 579-595.
[11] 王楚鑫, 王迎超, 董传新, 武佩锋, 张政, . 基于时间序列聚类和粒模型的地面沉降模式分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 631-644.
[12] 高旭, 宋琨, 李凌, 晏鄂川, 王卫明, . 基于迭代协同克里金反演的非均质地基固结沉降预测研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 761-770.
[13] 黄大维, 刘家璇, 谭满生, 邓翔浩, 黄永亮, 翁友华, 陈升平, . 盾构隧道底部注浆抬升模拟试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 371-381.
[14] 李涛, 舒佳军, 王彦龙, 陈前. 基于模态分解方法的深基坑支护桩水平变形预测[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 496-506.
[15] 魏星, 陈睿, 程世涛, 朱明, 王子健, . 成都膨胀土地区深基坑降雨稳定性分析与变形预测[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 525-534.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!