二级边坡织物袋坎墙侧向加载的模型试验

关晓迪; 李荣建; 江子龙; 秦泽轩; 曹捷宇

doi:10.13204/j.gyjzG21050609

二级边坡织物袋坎墙侧向加载的模型试验

doi: 10.13204/j.gyjzG21050609

西安理工大学岩土工程研究所, 西安 710048

基金项目:

陕西省重点研发计划项目(2020ZDLGY07-03)。

中国综合地质调查项目(DD20190268)

详细信息

作者简介:
关晓迪,男,1995年出生,博士研究生。

通讯作者:
李荣建,男,1969年出生,博士,教授,博士生导师,lirongjian@xaut.edu.cn。

计量
- 文章访问数: 138
- HTML全文浏览量: 35
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-05-06
- 网络出版日期: 2022-09-05

Model Tests for Two-Tier Slopes Supported with Ridge Walls of Geotextile Bags Under Lateral Loading

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Xi'an University of Technology, Xi'an 710048, China

摘要

摘要: 为研究二级边坡织物袋坎墙侧向承载特性,开展了4种织物袋坎墙支护(无支护、单坎型支护、L坎型支护及反坡L坎型支护)和3种坡比(1∶0.3、1∶0.5及1∶0.75)状态下二级边坡侧向非均匀加载模型试验,分析侧向加载作用下坡体位移和墙后土压力的变化。结果表明:在侧推位移作用下,各个试验中第二级边坡水平位移均大于第一级边坡,同时第二、一级边坡墙后土压力均随墙高呈增大趋势,且第一、二级边坡连接处土压力最大;以无支护边坡作为参照,单坎型、L坎型及反坡L坎型支护的第二级边坡坡顶水平位移分别减小了8.6%、13.2%和16.5%,且单坎型支护的第二级边坡坡脚处土压力增大了19.3%,L坎型支护的第二级边坡坡脚处土压力增大了32.6%,反坡L坎型支护的第二级边坡坡脚处土压力增大了42.2%,以坡比为1∶0.3的单坎型支护边坡作为参照,坡比为1∶0.5的第二级边坡坡顶拱起高度增加了18.2%、坡顶水平位移减小了7.1%、坡脚土压力增加了7.8%,坡比为1∶0.75的第二级边坡坡顶隆起高度增加了34.8%、坡顶水平位移减小了10.9%、坡脚土压力增加了23.1%。表明第二级边坡均先于第一级边坡发生破坏,且反坡L坎型织物袋坎墙支护下第二级边坡抵抗侧向变形能力最大,同时坡比越小,边坡抵抗侧向变形能力越大,柔性坎墙抵抗侧向土压力能力越大,承载能力越高。
- 二级边坡 /
- 织物袋 /
- 侧向加载 /
- 侧向变形
Abstract: To explore the lateral bearing characteristics of two-tier slopes supported with ridge walls of geotextile bags, the model tests of two-tier slopes under non-uniform lateral loading were conducted in the conditions of four kinds of ridge walls supported with geotextile bags, including no support, inclined type supporting, L-shaped supporting and L-shaped supporting with notched sills, and three kinds of slope rates involving 1∶0.3, 1∶0.5 and 1∶0.75, respectively. The displacement of the slopes and earth pressure were analyzed under lateral loading. The results showed that the horizontal displacement of the second tier slopes was greater than those of the first tier slopes. Simultaneously, the earth pressure behind those walls increased with the wall height. And the earth pressure at the connections between the first and second tier slopes was the largest. Taking the non-supporting slope as reference, the horizontal displacement at the tops of the second tier slopes with inclined type, L-shaped and L-shaped supporting with notched sills decreased by 8.6%, 13.2% and 16.5%, respectively, and the earth pressure at the toes of slopes with inclined type supporting increased by 19.3%, and the earth pressure at the toes of the second tier slopes with L-shaped supporting increased by 32.6%. The earth pressure at the toes of the second tier slopes with L-shaped supporting with notched sills increased by 42.2%. Taking the slope at a slope rate of 1∶0.3 as reference, the heave height on crests of the second tier slopes at a slope rate of 1∶0.5 increased by 18.2%, the horizontal displacement of slope tops decreased by 7.1%, and the earth pressure at toes of slope increased by 7.8%. Simultaneously, the heave height on crests of the second tier slopes at a slope rate of 1∶0.75 increased by 34.8%, the horizontal displacement of slope tops decreased by 10.9%, the earth pressure at the toes of slopes increased by 23.1%. It showed that the failure of the second tier slopes preceded that of the first tier slopes. The lateral deformation resistance of the second tier slopes was maximum in support of geotextile-bag ridge walls with the L-shaped supporting with notch sills. In addition, the smaller the slope ratio was, the greater the capacity of the slope to resist lateral deformation was, the greater the capacity of the flexible ridge wall to resist lateral earth pressure was, and the larger the bearing capacity was.
- two-stage slope /
- geotextile bag /
- lateral loading /
- lateral deformation

HTML全文

参考文献(15)

[1]	BHATTACHARYYA R, SMETS T, FULLEN M A, et al. Both effectiveness of geotextiles in reducing runoff and soil loss:a synthesis[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2010, 81:184-195.
[2]	OBERHAGEMANN K, HOSSAIN M. Geotextile bag revetments for large rivers in Bangladesh[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2011, 29(4):402-414.
[3]	WETZEL M A, WIEFMANN M, KOOP J H F. The ecological potential of geotextiles in hydraulic engineering[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2011, 29:440-446.
[4]	王凤才, 张兴, 朱菊明, 等.土工布加筋土水工挡墙设计与施工[J]. 东北水利水电, 1990 (8):29-33.
[5]	梁静, 丁金华. 冲刷试验下土工织物袋物理力学性质变化规律[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2010, 27(11):67-70.
[6]	赵鹏程. 土工织物袋在膨胀土路堑滑塌边坡处治中的应用[J]. 公路与汽运, 2015 (5):100-102.
[7]	李光录, 高霞, 刘馨. PP织物袋梯田筑坎破坏形式与稳定性分析[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2015, 20(2):201-206.
[8]	陈曙东, 袁红雷, 江琳坤,等. 土工织物袋充填技术在珠江河口整治工程中的应用[J]. 人民珠江, 2002 (5):35-37.
[9]	窦宝松, 王力威,栗保山. 防汛抢险中土工合成材料的应用技术[J]. 水利水电技术, 2006, 37(10):70-71 ,81.
[10]	李光录, 柳诗众, 邓民兴, 等. PP织物袋梯田筑坎技术在陕南秦巴山区的应用[J]. 中国水土保持, 2011 (11):29-31.
[11]	李光录, 柳诗众, 邓民兴, 等. 陕南秦巴山区PP织物袋梯田筑坎结构和坎型研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2012 (9):44-45.
[12]	别宗霖, 袁柳. 土工编织袋路堤填筑施工技术[J]. 技术与市场, 2013, 20(10):44-45.
[13]	杨晨辉, 李光录, 杨娟,等. PP织物袋梯田护坎植物根-土复合体抗剪强度研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2014 (12):52-55.
[14]	董鑫, 霍旭挺, 李荣建, 等. 梯田坎墙土压力及墙后膨胀土降雨增湿膨胀效应评价[J]. 水利水电技术, 2019,50(7):209-215.
[15]	肖玉强, 李伟, 耿莹莹,等. 砂袋挡土墙土压力和变形特性的试验研究[J]. 水利与建筑工程学报, 2019,17(4):176-181.