岩土力学
巖土力學
암토역학
ROCK AND SOIL MECHANICS
2013年
8期
2316-2322
,共7页
吕伟华%缪林昌%王非%蔡海粟%张成相
呂偉華%繆林昌%王非%蔡海粟%張成相
려위화%무림창%왕비%채해속%장성상
拓宽路堤%土工格栅%桩%现场试验%土拱效应
拓寬路隄%土工格柵%樁%現場試驗%土拱效應
탁관로제%토공격책%장%현장시험%토공효응
widening embankment%geogrid%pile%field test%soil arching
采用桩-网加固拓宽路堤时,土拱效应对于分析新老路堤应力分布和差异沉降有至关重要的作用。依托某高速公路路堤拓宽项目对土拱效应进行研究,对试验段新路堤填筑过程及运营时基底桩及桩间土不同位置处土压力、加筋层拉应变进行监测,得到二维平面土拱效应的变化规律,并利用已有土拱效应计算方法对现场实测结果进行对比验证。结果表明,平面土拱作用范围在一定高度范围内,试验段约为2.0 m,即拱高、拱跨之比约为1.4,与英国规范 BS8006[1]相近;按 Guido 法[2]与 BS8006法[3]进行土工格栅的设计均过于保守,除 Guido 法以外,几种方法均低估桩间地基土的承担荷载贡献。因此,需在理论上作进一步研究。
採用樁-網加固拓寬路隄時,土拱效應對于分析新老路隄應力分佈和差異沉降有至關重要的作用。依託某高速公路路隄拓寬項目對土拱效應進行研究,對試驗段新路隄填築過程及運營時基底樁及樁間土不同位置處土壓力、加觔層拉應變進行鑑測,得到二維平麵土拱效應的變化規律,併利用已有土拱效應計算方法對現場實測結果進行對比驗證。結果錶明,平麵土拱作用範圍在一定高度範圍內,試驗段約為2.0 m,即拱高、拱跨之比約為1.4,與英國規範 BS8006[1]相近;按 Guido 法[2]與 BS8006法[3]進行土工格柵的設計均過于保守,除 Guido 法以外,幾種方法均低估樁間地基土的承擔荷載貢獻。因此,需在理論上作進一步研究。
채용장-망가고탁관로제시,토공효응대우분석신로로제응력분포화차이침강유지관중요적작용。의탁모고속공로로제탁관항목대토공효응진행연구,대시험단신로제전축과정급운영시기저장급장간토불동위치처토압력、가근층랍응변진행감측,득도이유평면토공효응적변화규률,병이용이유토공효응계산방법대현장실측결과진행대비험증。결과표명,평면토공작용범위재일정고도범위내,시험단약위2.0 m,즉공고、공과지비약위1.4,여영국규범 BS8006[1]상근;안 Guido 법[2]여 BS8006법[3]진행토공격책적설계균과우보수,제 Guido 법이외,궤충방법균저고장간지기토적승담하재공헌。인차,수재이론상작진일보연구。
Soil arching is very important for analyzing the stress state of existing and widening embankment and differential settlement between piles (caps) and subsoil. In this paper, the behavior of soil arching is analyzed for a widening embankment which is supported by rigid piles with caps and reinforced by geogrid. Based on the test site of the widening expressway project, earth pressures on caps and subsoil at the bottom and at different depths to fill surface are investigated; and tensile strains of the geogrid are monitored too. Then stress concentration ratios and soil arching ratios are analyzed and compared with several current design methods, including the Guido method, the BS8006 method, the Kempfert method and the Low method. Results show that, a two-dimensional plane soil arching fill load distribution on caps and subsoil within a critical arch height which is deduced to be 2.0 m owing a ratio of 1.4 the pile clear spacing, and is consistent with BS8006. The Guido and BS8006 methods were too conservative on assessing tensile strain of geogrid; Except for the Guido method, all rest presented design methods underestimated the resistance from the compressible subsoil. So, further study and a better understanding of soil arching should be developed.