岩土力学 ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (9): 2371-2382.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2021.1924

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

刚性挡墙后非饱和土破坏模式及主动土压力计算

邓波1, 2,杨明辉2,王东星3,樊军伟1   

  1. 1. 南华大学 土木工程学院,湖南 衡阳 421001;2. 厦门大学 建筑与土木工程学院,福建 厦门 361005; 3. 武汉大学 土木建筑工程学院,湖北 武汉 430072
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-13 修回日期:2022-04-29 出版日期:2022-09-12 发布日期:2022-09-12
  • 通讯作者: 杨明辉,男,1978年生,博士,教授,主要从事桩基础及特殊土路基工程研究。E-mail: yamih@hnu.edu.cn E-mail: parl_d@126.com
  • 作者简介:邓波,男,1991年生,博士,讲师,主要从事非饱和土力学理论与应用等研究
  • 基金资助:
    湖南省自然科学青年基金资助项目(No.2021JJ40460);国家自然科学基金资助项目(No.51678230,No.52079098)。

Failure mode and active earth pressure calculation of unsaturated soil behind rigid retaining wall

DENG Bo1, 2, YANG Ming-hui2, WANG Dong-xing3, FAN Jun-wei1   

  1. 1. College of Civil Engineering, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan 421001, China; 2. Department of Civil Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China; 3. School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China
  • Received:2021-11-13 Revised:2022-04-29 Online:2022-09-12 Published:2022-09-12
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation for Youths of Hunan Province of China (2021JJ40460) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51678230, 52079098).

摘要: 目前主动土压力计算方法多仅针对土体处于饱和或干燥状态,忽略了其从非饱和到局部饱和,或饱和到非饱和的渐变过程,进而导致计算结果失真。鉴于此,首先开展了一系列刚性挡墙非饱和砂土主动土压力模型试验,揭示了墙后土体的破坏规律:(1)墙后土体顶部出现了近似竖直裂缝,且其发展深度随墙面粗糙度和含水率的增加而变大;(2)墙土界面摩擦对塑性区形状影响较小,且在挡墙移动过程中,墙后土体塑性区形状始终近似保持为平面。在试验基础上,引入广义有效应力原理,基于极限平衡分析建立了考虑吸应力效应的非饱和土主动土压力计算方法,理论与试验实测值表明,所提方法相比其他方法,更接近于试验值。分析了各主要因素对非饱和土压力分布规律的影响,结果表明:主动土压力随有效内摩擦角值增加而减少,而界面摩擦角对其分布影响较小;相比于无吸力情况,考虑吸力时主动土压力更小;随着进气值增加,吸应力对主动土压力的贡献减少,最终趋于恒定。

关键词: 挡土墙, 模型试验, 主动土压力, 基质吸力, 界面粗糙度

Abstract:

At present, the calculation methods of active earth pressure are mostly only for the soil in a saturated or dry state, ignoring the gradual process of soil from unsaturated to partially saturated, or from saturated to unsaturated, which leads to distortion of the calculation results. In this study, a series of model tests on the active earth pressure of unsaturated sand behind retaining wall is carried out to reveal the failure law of soil behind the wall. Observations show that, 1) there is an approximately vertical crack on the top of the soil behind the wall, and its development depth increases with the increase of wall surface roughness and water content;  2) the wall-soil interface friction has almost no effect on the plastic zone of the soil behind the wall, and the shape of the plastic zone  remains approximately flat during the movement of the retaining wall. On the basis of tests, the generalized effective stress principle is introduced, an analytical method for calculating active earth pressure of unsaturated soil considering the effect of suction stress is developed based on limit equilibrium analysis. The theoretical and experimental results show that the proposed method is closer to the experimental values than other methods. Finally, the main factors influencing the active earth pressure of unsaturated soil are analyzed, and it is found that the active earth pressure decreases with the increase of soil friction angle, but the interface friction angle has little influence on the distribution of active earth pressure; compared with no suction case, the active earth pressure is smaller when considering suction; with the increase of air-entry value, the contribution of the suction stress to the active earth pressure decreases and eventually tends to be constant.

Key words: retaining wall, model test, active earth pressure, matric suction, interface roughness

中图分类号: TU470
[1] 马滨, 王丽艳, 吉文炜, 吴晗, 蔡晓光, 王炳辉, . 强震下返包胎面加筋挡土墙结构抗震性能模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2792-2804.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 石湛, 章铁军, 李美香, 陶司记, 伯音, 李云波, . 泥水平衡盾构仓内水平冻结温度场的模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1534-1544.
[9] 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.
[10] 任一青, 陈保国, 任国卿, 杨振忠, 徐方. 涵顶-涵侧减载条件下高填方箱涵施工期受力特性[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1153-1162.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 姚嘉楠, 徐长节, 迟民良, 王艳萍, 习跃来, 王伟锋, 冯国辉, 孙佳政, . RBT模式下刚性挡墙非极限主动土压力的离散元模拟及理论研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 640-652.
[14] 王兵, 胡小波, 孔楠楠. 真空联合电渗加固超细颗粒疏浚土试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3523-3533.
[15] 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.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!