| 深层平板和单桩竖向抗压静载试验的对比分析 |
| 投稿时间：2017-06-11 修订日期：2017-11-12 点此下载全文 |
| 引用本文：江小兵,吴红兵,张浩博.深层平板和单桩竖向抗压静载试验的对比分析[J].钻探工程,2018,45(1):84-88.Jiang Xiao Bing,WU Hong-bing,ZHANG Hao-bo. Comparative Analysis on the Deep Plate Test and Single Pile Vertical Compressive Static Load Test[J]. Drilling Engineering, 2018,45(1):84-88. |
| 摘要点击次数: 1121 |
| 全文下载次数: 667 |
|
|
| 中文摘要:根据Mindlin理论弹性位移解，结合有限元算例，分析了在同等荷载工作条件下深层平板和单桩竖向抗压静载试验的竖向位移差异。深层平板与单桩竖向抗压静载试验产生的竖向位移的比值，随着桩径的增大而减小，在常规桩径0.8～2.0 m范围内，两者的比值为3.2～4.6倍。工程实例发现，两者的比值可达4.5～7.2倍。因此，深层平板载荷试验不能充分挖掘单桩竖向受力潜能，其试验结果不能真实反应单桩竖向受力性能，不应采用深层平板载荷试验确定桩端承载力，而应采用单桩竖向抗压静载试验确定承载力。 |
| 中文关键词:Mindlin位移解 深层平板载荷试验 单桩竖向抗压静载试验 竖向位移 有限元计算 对比分析 |
| |
| Comparative Analysis on the Deep Plate Test and Single Pile Vertical Compressive Static Load Test |
|
|
| Abstract:Based on the Mindlin elastic displacement solution and combined with finite element numerical example, the analysis is made on the vertical deformation difference of deep plate test and single pile vertical compressive static load test under the same load condition. The ratio of vertical displacement resulted from these 2 tests decreases with the increase of pile diameter, and the ratio is 3.2～4.6 while the conventional pile diameters are within the range of 0.8～2.0m. The engineering example shows that the ratio of the both can be 4.5～7.2 times. Therefore, single pile vertical load-bearing potential can not be fully exploited in the deep plate loading test and the test results can not truly reflect the single pile vertical load-bearing performance. The bearing capacity of pile tip should be determined by single pile vertical compressive static load test rather than deep plate loading test. |
| keywords:Mindlin’s displacement solution deep plate loading test single pile vertical compressive static load test vertical displacement finite element calculation comparative analysis |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
