岩土力学 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (12): 3727-3739.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2025.00003CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2025.00003

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

反压桩板挡墙力学性能试验研究

干飞1, 2,王寿红1,郑刚2,周海祚2,李美霖1, 王宏1,毕靖1,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 550000
  • 收稿日期:2025-01-15 接受日期:2025-04-22 出版日期:2025-12-11 发布日期:2025-12-13
  • 作者简介: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
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(No.52164001,No.52568047)

Experimental investigation on mechanical properties of counterpressure pile sheet retaining wall

GAN Fei1, 2, WANG Shou-hong1, ZHENG Gang2, ZHOU Hai-zuo2, LI Mei-lin1, WANG Hong1, BI Jing1, 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 550000, China
  • Received:2025-01-15 Accepted:2025-04-22 Online:2025-12-11 Published:2025-12-13
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52164001, 52568047).

摘要: 反压桩板挡墙是一种新型边坡支挡结构,已有工程实践表明其支护性能优越,但对其变形特征及受力机制认识不足。通过反压桩与悬臂桩的模型试验,探讨了砂土回填过程中桩顶位移、桩身变形、内力分布及土压力演化规律。试验结果表明:(1)悬臂桩桩顶水平位移为81.76 mm,是反压桩(12.22 mm)的6.69倍,大变形导致距坡顶51 cm处的土体开裂;(2)反压桩弯矩呈典型的S形分布,出现明显反弯现象,最大弯矩值减小;(3)悬臂桩变形过大,导致垂直于桩身方向的土体重力分量增大,反压桩土压力较悬臂桩减小约15%,反映其良好的应力重分布能力;(4)反压桩通过提供抗倾覆力矩、增强水平抗力及提高桩前土压力3种机制协调作用,有效提升了结构的抗倾覆能力,抑制了滑移趋势,增强了长期稳定性。研究成果为反压桩板挡墙结构优化设计提供了理论依据与试验支撑。

关键词: 反压桩板挡墙, 模型试验, 土压力, 桩身变形, 桩前土抗力

Abstract: The counterpressure pile sheet retaining walls are a novel type of slope support structure. Although engineering practice has demonstrated their excellent performance, systematic studies on their deformation characteristics and mechanical behavior remain limited. Through model tests comparing counterpressure piles and cantilever piles, this study investigates the evolution of pile-top displacement, pile deformation, internal force distribution, and earth pressure during the sandy backfill process. Key findings are as follows: (1) The top displacement of the cantilever pile was 81.76 mm, which is 6.69 times that of the counterpressure pile (12.22 mm), resulting in cracking in the soil mass 51 cm horizontally away from the pile top. (2) The counterpressure pile exhibits a typical S-shaped distribution of bending moment, with a distinct reverse bending phenomenon and a reduction in the peak moment. (3) The excessive deformation of cantilever piles leads to an increase in the gravitational component of soil weight perpendicular to the pile shaft direction. The soil pressure on the counter-pressure pile is about 15% lower than that on the cantilever pile, reflecting its good stress redistribution ability. (4) Three primary working mechanisms are identified: provision of anti-overturning moment through soil reaction on the counterpressure plate, enhancement of horizontal resistance via friction between the plate and soil, and increase of passive earth pressure in front of the pile. The counterpressure platform significantly enhances overturning resistance, mitigates slip, and improves long-term structural stability. These findings offer experimental validation and a theoretical basis for optimizing counterpressure pile sheet retaining wall designs.

Key words: counterpressure pile sheet retaining wall, model test, earth pressure, pile deformation, soil resistance in front of pile

中图分类号: TU432
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 宋伟涛, 张佩, 杜修力, 林庆涛, . 土性对浅埋盾构隧道施工地层响应影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2179-2188.
[11] 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.
[12] 杨柏, 覃超, 张银海, 王威, 肖世国, . 下伏溶洞的高嵌岩比基桩承载特性模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1839-1850.
[13] 蔡田明, 李顺群, 程学磊, 周燕, 李有兵, 井乐炜, 方心畅, 王英红, . 温度对土压力盒测试数据的影响分析与应用研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1967-1976.
[14] 刘红帅, 杨健生, 宋东松, 孙强强, . 近场脉冲和非脉冲地震动作用下干砂场地响应的离心振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1429-1441.
[15] 孙珊珊, 贾世文, 梁忠旭, 刘墨林, 张常光. 基于填土荷载传递二项式分布模式的沟埋式涵洞竖向土压力[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1501-1510.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!