岩土力学 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1): 245-254.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2020.0578

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同面板形式加筋土挡墙结构 特性现场试验研究

牛笑笛1, 2,杨广庆2, 3,王贺3,丁硕3,冯帆3   

  1. 1. 石家庄铁道大学 交通运输学院,河北省 石家庄 050043;2. 石家庄铁道大学 省部共建交通工程结构力学行为与系统安全国家重点实验室, 河北省 石家庄 050043;3. 石家庄铁道大学 土木工程学院,河北省 石家庄 050043
  • 收稿日期:2020-05-08 修回日期:2020-10-09 出版日期:2021-01-11 发布日期:2021-01-07
  • 通讯作者: 杨广庆,男,1971年生,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事土工合成材料加筋、路基工程等方面的研究与教学工作。E-mail: gtsyang@vip.163.com E-mail:tdniuxd@163.com
  • 作者简介:牛笑笛,男,1991年生,博士研究生,主要从事土工合成材料加筋、岩土工程等方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金资助项目(No. 51378322,No. 51709175);河北省自然科学基金资助项目(No. E2019208159)

Field tests on structural properties of reinforced retaining walls with different panels

NIU Xiao-di1, 2, YANG Guang-qing2, 3, WANG He3, DING Shuo3, FENG Fan3   

  1. 1. School of Traffic and Transportation, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050043, China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Behavior and System Safety of Traffic Engineering Structures, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050043, China; 3. School of Civil Engineering, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050043, China
  • Received:2020-05-08 Revised:2020-10-09 Online:2021-01-11 Published:2021-01-07
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51378322, 51709175) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (E2019208159).

摘要: 以成昆铁路复线加筋土挡墙为工程依托进行现场原位试验,对比分析工后9个月内新型整体式面板、内嵌返包结构的模块式面板和模块式面板3类加筋土挡墙的结构特性。在此期间发生两次地震,监测了震后挡墙变形及土压力变化。结果表明:整体式面板加筋土挡墙整体稳定性最好,具有良好的抗震性能,格栅应变变化率、墙体压缩量和墙面水平位移均最小。整体式面板和模块式面板加筋土挡墙墙背土压力沿墙高近似呈M型,内嵌返包结构的模块式面板加筋土挡墙墙背土压力沿墙高近似呈倒S型。整体式面板加筋土挡墙的侧向土压力系数沿墙高变化较小,小于美国联邦公路局(FHWA)加筋设计指南计算值;内嵌返包结构的模块式面板加筋土挡墙侧向土压力系数沿墙高呈增大的趋势,挡墙中、下部小于FHWA计算值,上部接近或大于静止土压力系数;模块式面板加筋土挡墙侧向土压力系数大部分处在FHWA计算值与静止土压力系数之间。3类挡墙土工格栅应变沿墙高均呈非线性变化。挡墙墙体压缩量随着时间的增加逐渐增加,在工后前50 d时间内增加速率较快,随后增加速率减缓,进入雨季之后增加速率再次增大。发生地震后,3类加筋土挡墙均出现不同程度的墙背土压力减小、格栅应变增大、墙体压缩量增加和墙面板外移的现象。

关键词: 加筋土挡墙, 不同面板形式, 结构特性, 地震

Abstract: Based on the reinforced retaining wall of Chengdu-Kunming railway, the field tests were carried out. The comparison of the reinforced retaining wall with full-height rigid panels, the reinforced retaining wall with modular panel embedded return package structure and the reinforced retaining wall with modular panel within 9 months after the completion of construction were analyzed to study the structural properties. During the test period, two earthquakes occurred and changes of the deformation of retaining wall and the earth pressure were monitored. The results show that the geogrid strain rate, wall compression and wall horizontal displacement can be well controlled by the reinforced retaining wall with full-height rigid panel, showing the best stability and seismic performance. The earth pressure on the back of the reinforced retaining wall with full-height rigid panel and reinforced retaining wall with modular panel are distributed following with a "M" type along the wall height. The distribution of earth pressure on the back of the reinforced retaining wall with modular panel embedded return package structure is similar to "S" along the wall height. The lateral earth pressure coefficients of the reinforced retaining wall with full-height rigid panel change little along the wall height, which are less than the FHWA calculated values. The lateral earth pressure coefficients of the reinforced retaining wall with modular panel embedded return package structure have an increased trend along the wall height. The values of the middle and lower part of the retaining wall are less than the FHWA calculated values, and the values of the upper part are close to or higher than the static earth pressure coefficients. Most of the lateral earth pressure coefficients of the reinforced retaining wall with modular panel are ranging from the FHWA calculation values to the static earth pressure coefficients. The geogrid strains of three retaining walls change nonlinearly along the wall height. The retaining wall compressions increase gradually with the increased time, especially in the first 50 days. Then the increase rates gradually decrease until the coming of the rainy season, the hydraulic effect promotes the increase rates to increase again. After the earthquakes, the earth pressure on the back decreases, the geogrid strain increases, the wall compressions increase and the wall panels have an obvious trend to move out.

Key words: reinforced retaining wall, different panels, structural property, earthquake

中图分类号: TU 470
[1] 赵武胜, 周帅, 解佩瑶, 高厚, 秦长坤, 陈卫忠, . 考虑初衬−二衬界面效应下隧道地震易损性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 477-490.
[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] 余小越, 许明, 谢强, 蔡宇, 刘先珊, 甘峰帆, . SH波在三角形山体地形中的散射与能量分布规律研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2639-2649.
[4] 刘健, 夏勇, 江权, 陈涛, 贺维国, 范国刚, 熊先涛, 郑虹, . 强烈构造区硬梁包水电站地下洞室群围岩变形破坏特征与泸定地震响应分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2265-2280.
[5] 范猛, 李敬军, 杨正权, 刘小生, 朱凯斌, 赵剑明, . 基于标准贯入试验的液化判别方法对深埋砂土适用性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2085-2094.
[6] 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.
[7] 杨景泉, 郑长杰, 丁选明, . 竖向入射P波激励下饱和土中管桩地震响应[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1477-1488.
[8] 董建华, 杨博, 田文通, 吴晓磊, 何鹏飞, 赵律华, 连博, . 新型防液化抗滑桩研发与地震响应振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1084-1094.
[9] 杨艳霜, 闫磊, 张占荣, 刘永莉, 崔臻, 彭剑承, 亢兆鹏, . 基于三相孔隙介质模型的地震动传播特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1109-1121.
[10] 王滢, 刘嘉怡, 高盟, 孔祥霄, . 地震作用下深海含气能源土动力特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 457-466.
[11] 裴媛媛, 龙建辉, 郭师苡, 安成纪, 翁杭雨, 张吉宁, . 不同荷载作用下折角式加筋土挡墙应力-应变特征模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 539-550.
[12] 刘文静, 邓辉, 周昕. 地震作用下含双层韧性剪切带高陡岩质边坡动力响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3534-3548.
[13] 蔡晓光, 徐洪路, 王海云, 李思汉, 李莹, .

土工格栅加筋土挡墙水平地震系数研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3033-3044.

[14] 何颖, 陈雅, 尹奔驰, 刘中宪, 刘旭, . 频率相关等效线性山谷交错场地多点地震动模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3280-3288.
[15] 钱法桥, 邓亚虹, 慕焕东, 杨楠, 刘凡, 王梦晨, . 基于小波变换和拟动力法的边坡地震稳定性评价方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(1): 88-96.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!