不同墙趾约束条件下模块式加筋土挡墙离心模型试验

开展了墙趾正常约束、仅对模块–基座界面作光滑处理、仅对基座–地基界面作光滑处理,以及对基座–地基界面作光滑处理且将基座前方土体挖除这4组不同墙趾约束条件的模块式加筋土挡墙离心模型试验,以研究工作应力下墙趾约束条件对挡墙内部稳定性的影响。研究结果表明,墙趾约束条件对模块式加筋土挡墙内部稳定性影响显著;对模块–基座界面作光滑处理的挡墙,其底层模块沿该界面滑移,挡墙中下部的墙面水平位移和筋材应变明显增大,筋材连接力沿墙高呈三角形分布;对基座–地基界面作光滑处理的挡墙,基座前方地基土仍可给基座提供足够的墙趾约束作用,挡墙内部稳定性同墙趾正常约束情况;对于基座–地基界面作光滑处理后又将基座前方土体挖除这种模拟墙趾受到冲刷的挡墙,其基座沿该界面滑移,挡墙中下部的墙面水平位移和筋材应变显著增大,筋材连接力接近极限状态AASHTO法计算的筋材最大拉力,但挡墙仍能保持稳定;在墙趾可能受到冲刷的极端情况下,挡墙在设计上不应考虑墙趾的约束作用,而对于正常服役状态的挡墙,可采用考虑墙趾约束作用的K-刚度法进行挡墙内部稳定性的计算。     

基于墙趾真实约束条件的模块式加筋土挡墙数值模拟

墙趾约束条件对硬质墙面加筋土挡墙性状影响显著。基于混凝土模块与级配碎石土直剪试验剪应力和剪切位移关系曲线,建立一非线性双曲线界面模型,并通过FLAC有限差分程序分析刚性地基上3.6 m高聚丙烯土工格栅加筋土挡墙在工作应力下的墙趾界面剪切特性、墙面和墙趾位移以及墙趾和筋材承担的荷载,得出在挡墙填筑过程中墙趾界面剪应力-剪切位移曲线呈上凹型;墙趾界面上的正应力、界面剪切刚度及墙趾和筋材承担的荷载随挡墙填筑高度而增大,在挡墙填筑至3.6 m时,其界面正应力是墙面模块自重应力的1.7倍,墙趾承担约87%的作用在墙背上的总水平荷载;在挡墙填筑初期由于界面剪切刚度较小,墙面和墙趾位移增大显著。较挡墙模型试验及以往数值模拟采用的墙趾恒定约束刚度,论文采用的双曲线界面模型可更好地反映挡墙墙趾与地基土真实剪切性状。     

台阶式加筋土挡墙面板水平位移与稳定性关系研究

为研究台阶式加筋土挡墙面板水平位移特征及其最大水平位移与稳定性的量化关系，采用验证的有限差分数值方法确定挡墙面板水平位移和每层筋材最大拉力，并借助强度折减方法确定相应挡墙的稳定系数，进而参数化分析填土及地基土性质、筋材性质和分级模式对面板水平位移及挡墙稳定性的影响，结果表明：(1)针对两级加筋土挡墙，保持其他参数不变：增加填土内摩擦角φ或黏聚力c，挡墙自稳能力增强，最大水平位移和实际筋材最大拉力均明显减少；增加上级或下级挡墙筋材长度，面板最大水平位移呈减少趋势，挡墙稳定系数相应增加，当上级筋材长度为0.7H(H为总墙高)和下级筋材长度为0.6H时，挡墙变形和稳定系数趋于稳定；减少筋材层间距或增加筋材刚度，挡墙最大水平位移减小，而稳定系数相应增加。(2)针对各级挡墙均分总墙高的台阶式加筋土挡墙，增加台阶宽度，面板最大水平位移先减小后渐趋稳定，对于规范推荐的填土(φ=34°)，确定相邻两级挡墙互不影响的临界台阶宽度为1.2倍分级墙高。(3)当台阶式加筋土挡墙总墙高和相对台阶宽度不变时，增加分级数导致最大水平位移和稳定系数均呈先减少后增加的趋势；两级加筋土挡墙上、下级墙高比不大于1时，墙高比...     

软弱地基刚/柔性组合墙面加筋土挡墙数值模拟

 基于软弱地基刚/柔性组合墙面加筋土挡墙离心模型试验,建立原型挡墙三维精细化有限差分数值模型,探讨挡墙在上覆荷载作用下的性状及受力机制。研究结果表明,数值模型计算结果与离心模型试验结果吻合较好,显示该型挡墙具有很好的承载性能,能适应软弱地基的大变形;挡墙在上覆荷载下产生的变形增量和结构受力与填土内部潜在滑移面位置密切相关,当潜在滑移面位置超过连接件埋深范围时,连接件作用降低,使得挡墙变形和筋材拉力增量明显增大,不均匀沉降显著,而刚性墙面墙背水平土压力和连接件拉力减小;由于“张力膜效应”,下面布置有连接件的筋材较下面无连接件的筋材,其拉力要大一些;上覆荷载引起的作用在组合墙面上的水平荷载可采用朗肯主动土压力计算,设计上,宜按连接件多承担水平荷载考虑。     

顶部条形荷载作用下加筋土挡墙水平变形分析

基于有限元数值方法,综合研究了顶部条形荷载宽度、偏移距离、荷载大小、筋材长度和填土性质等对挡墙水平变形的影响,研究结果表明：增加基础偏移距离,导致墙面水平变形逐渐减小,而最大变形出现位置逐渐降低;当增加基础宽度或荷载等级,可显著增加加筋土挡墙水平变形前者使最大水平变形出现的位置逐步下移,后者使最大水平变形出现位置逐步上移,最终趋于稳定;增加填土抗剪强度,可显著提高挡墙抗变形能力,从而显著减少加筋土挡墙面板水平变形;增加筋材长度可有效减小墙面水平变形,当筋材长度增至0.7倍墙高后,继续增加筋材长度对墙面板水平变形的控制作用减弱。     

软土地基加筋土挡墙现场试验研究

 结合一软土地基反包式土工格栅加筋黏性土挡墙现场测试,对挡墙填筑过程中原地表沉降、墙趾水平和垂直位移、墙面水平位移、挡墙内部垂直土压力和墙背水平土压力,以及筋材应变分布等进行分析,探讨其工作性状及其稳定性。分析结果表明：软土地基加筋土挡墙的破坏形式表现为外部失稳;挡墙墙面出现“鼓肚”现象,其最大水平位移位于挡墙中部墙高位置;格栅应变在距墙面0.8 H(H为挡墙的高度)处最大,设计上的0.3H法不能适用于深厚软土地基加筋土挡墙。研究成果可为今后类似工程的研究、设计与施工提供参考。     

墙面倾角对模块式加筋土挡土墙结构影响的分析

基于FLAC3D建立了加筋土挡土墙数值模型，在验证模型有效性的基础上，通过调整墙面倾角，分析墙面倾角对模块式加筋土挡土墙的侧向变形、土压力和筋材拉力的影响。结果表明：当墙面倾角由90°逐渐减小至65°时，模块式加筋土挡墙的侧向变形、面墙后的土压力和筋材拉力均出现减小；侧向变形模式由外倾-平移式转为平移、平移-鼓胀式；面板后水平土压力沿墙高的分布规律由线性分布转变为非线性分布；墙内筋材的拉力峰值与墙面倾角间呈线性关系，筋材与模块连接处的拉力与墙面倾角间呈指数关系；75°是模块式加筋土挡土墙的合理倾角，不仅便于墙面绿化，而且可减少挡土墙变形，提高挡土墙的稳定性。     

多级加筋土复合式挡墙的现场试验

在现场对由L型挡土墙与加筋土挡墙形成的多级加筋土复合式挡墙进行了原位试验。试验表明:土压力和拉筋应变随上覆填土厚度增加而增大,但增速却减小;L型挡土墙的加筋土体底部竖向土压力沿筋长方向在加筋土施工期间呈非残性分布,在其上的中且上级模块式加筋土挡墙的竖向土压力施工期呈明显的非线性分布,但最大值均靠近拉筋尾部;L型加筋土挡墙的拉筋应变非常小,且曲线只有一个峰值;模块式加筋土挡墙的加筋土体底部竖向土压力沿筋长方向起初呈线性分布且大小基本相同,但随着填土厚度的增大而呈明显的非线性分布,且出现双峰值;中、上级挡墙的墙面板基底竖向应力随填土厚度的变化形式基本一样,且随填土厚度的增大先是内侧大于外侧,而后是外侧大于内侧;模块式加筋土挡墙的墙背侧向土压力沿墙高、拉筋应变沿筋长方向均呈非线性分布,且实测值均较小。     

多级加筋土复合式挡墙的现场试验

在现场对由L型挡土墙与加筋土挡墙形成的多级加筋土复合式挡墙进行了原位试验。试验表明:土压力和拉筋应变随上覆填土厚度增加而增大,但增速却减小;L型挡土墙的加筋土体底部竖向土压力沿筋长方向在加筋土施工期间呈非残性分布,在其上的中且上级模块式加筋土挡墙的竖向土压力施工期呈明显的非线性分布,但最大值均靠近拉筋尾部;L型加筋土挡墙的拉筋应变非常小,且曲线只有一个峰值;模块式加筋土挡墙的加筋土体底部竖向土压力沿筋长方向起初呈线性分布且大小基本相同,但随着填土厚度的增大而呈明显的非线性分布,且出现双峰值;中、上级挡墙的墙面板基底竖向应力随填土厚度的变化形式基本一样,且随填土厚度的增大先是内侧大于外侧,而后是外侧大于内侧;模块式加筋土挡墙的墙背侧向土压力沿墙高、拉筋应变沿筋长方向均呈非线性分布,且实测值均较小。     

软土地基加筋土挡墙数值模拟及稳定性探讨

 对一软土地基加筋土挡墙建立二维数值模型,模拟其在分级堆载情况下挡墙和地基内的沉降、水平位移、土压力,以及土工格栅轴向应变的变化规律,模拟结果与现场实测结果基本吻合。采用有限元强度折减法计算的挡墙稳定性和滑裂面位置与实测情况一致,表现为深层滑动失稳。模拟和实测的各层筋材最大应变出现在距墙面4～6 m的位置,与目前土工合成材料加筋挡墙设计理论的朗肯破坏面位置不同,其原因是目前的挡墙设计理论基于刚性地基假定,未考虑地基变形对筋材应变分布及稳定性的影响。采用该数值模型探讨加长挡墙底部筋材对其稳定性的影响,得出挡墙稳定性与底部筋材加长长度和层数关系密切。得到的挡墙稳定性与筋材加长长度和层数的关系曲线,对于软土地基加筋土挡墙设计有指导意义。     

Numerical modeling of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls with different toe restraint conditions

This paper reports numerical modeling of the prototype geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls corresponding to four centrifuge models that have different toe restraint conditions. The development of the interface stresses and displacements at wall toe during wall construction is investigated to understand how the toe carries load in the GRS walls with a practical toe structure. The numerical results show good agreement with the data from the centrifuge modeling. For the GRS walls with a leveling pad embedded in foundation soil, the shear resistance at the facing block-leveling pad interface acts as the toe resistance to counterbalance a portion of horizontal earth load, while the leveling pad-foundation soil interface play no role in wall performance because the soil passive resistance in front of the leveling pad inhibits the development of the shear stress and displacement on this interface. For the GRS walls with an exposed leveling pad, it is the leveling pad-foundation soil interface that works for carrying the earth load because the wall is more likely to slide along this weaker interface. The contribution of the toe to load capacity depends on the shear strength of the effective toe interface that contributes to the resistance against the earth load.     

Influence of toe restraint conditions on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls using centrifuge model tests

Current design regulations most often require use of limit equilibrium methods for the internal stability analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) walls. However, the limit-equilibrium based approaches generally over-predict reinforcement loads for GRS walls when comparing with measured data from full-scale instrumented walls under working stress conditions. Wall toe resistance has an important influence on the performance of GRS walls but is ignored in limit equilibrium-based methods of design. This paper reports centrifuge modelling of GRS walls which have different toe restraint conditions but are otherwise identical. The GRS wall models prepared in this study isolate the influence of wall toe resistance on the performance of walls. Based on measured data from four centrifuge wall model tests, a reduction in wall toe resistance (by reducing the interface shear resistance at the base of the wall facing or removing the soil passive resistance in front of the wall toe or both) induces larger maximum facing deformation and reinforcement strain and load. The results also demonstrate that the wall models with typical toe restraint conditions are most likely operated under working stress conditions while those with poor toe restraint conditions may experience (or be close to reach) a state of limit equilibrium.     

Numerical evaluation of secondary reinforcement effect on geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls

A finite difference method was employed to evaluate the effect of secondary reinforcement on the performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Retaining (GRR) walls. The two-dimensional numerical models used a Cap-Yield soil constitutive model to represent the behavior of backfill. The numerical model was first calibrated and verified by the measured results from a full-scale field test. A parametric study was then performed to investigate the effects of secondary reinforcement length, secondary reinforcement stiffness, secondary reinforcement connection, and secondary reinforcement layout. The numerical results show that an increase in secondary reinforcement length and stiffness can reduce the deflection of the GRR wall and the maximum tensile stress of primary reinforcement. The mechanical connection of secondary reinforcement can also reduce the wall facing deflection and result in relatively small maximum tensile stress and connection stress in the primary reinforcement as compared with no connection to the secondary reinforcement. In addition, a wall with fewer but longer secondary reinforcement layers at certain elevations had relatively smaller wall facing deflections than the baseline case. This comparison demonstrates that more optimal layout of secondary reinforcement exists that could further reduce the maximum wall facing deflections and create a better performing wall while the same or less amount of geosynthetic reinforcement material is used.     

Effects of facing,reinforcement stiffness,toe resistance,and height on reinforced walls

This study numerically investigated the combined effect of reinforcement and facing stiffness, wall height, and toe resistance on the behavior of reinforced soil (RS) walls under working stress conditions. For RS walls with vertical segmental block facing, parametric analyses showed that the combined effect of the facing stiffness, wall height, and toe resistance on the distribution of the maximum reinforcement load with depth may be limited to approximately 4 m above the base of the wall. Furthermore, the shape of the distribution of the reinforcement load may be a function of the combined effect of the wall height, reinforcement stiffness, toe resistance, and facing stiffness. For a given facing stiffness and fixed-base conditions, increasing the height of the wall and reinforcement stiffness may change the distribution shape of the reinforcement load from trapezoidal to the triangular. Additionally, the maximum reinforcement loads calculated using finite element analyses were compared to the values predicted by design methods found in the literature. Some limitations of those design procedures are presented and discussed.     

Full-scale mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls under strip footing load

This study analyses two full-scale model tests on mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. One test was conducted with a rigid and one with a flexible wall face. Other parameters were the same in these two tests, like the number and type of geogrid layers, the vertical distance between the layers and the soil type. The loads and strains on the reinforcement are measured as function of the horizontal and vertical earth pressure and compared with analytical models. Specifics regarding the behavior of the geogrids under the compaction load during the construction of the model and under strip footing load are included in the study. Results are compared with AASHTO and the empirical K-stiffness method. In this study, an analytical method is developed for the MSE walls taking into account the facing panel rigidity both after backfill construction and after strip footing load. There is good agreement between the proposed analytical method and the experimental results considering the facing panel rigidity. The results indicate that the tensile force on reinforcement layers for rigid facing is less than the flexible facing. The maximum strains in the reinforcement layers occurred in the upper layers right below the strip footing load. The maximum wall deflection for the flexible facing is more than for the rigid facing. The maximum deflection was at the top of the wall for the rigid facing and occurred at z/H?=?0.81 from top of the wall for the flexible facing.     

往复荷载下预应力正交胶合木剪力墙抗侧力性能研究

侧向荷载作用下,正交胶合木(cross-laminated timber,CLT)剪力墙的侧向承载力往往因墙体连接区域发生破坏而骤降。为了避免该破坏特征,提出在CLT墙板中贯穿无黏结预应力钢绞线,进而构成预压于基础上表面的预应力CLT剪力墙。通过拟静力往复加载试验,共测试了3面具有不同初始张拉力的无耗能件预应力CLT剪力墙和1面装有耗能件的预应力CLT剪力墙,所有试件均为2层楼层的缩尺墙体试件,且上、下层墙板间布置有经特殊构造设计的CLT-钢组合楼板系统。基于试验数据,分析侧向荷载作用下,墙体试件的力学性能参数,水平侧移、钢绞线张拉力变化特征和墙体破坏模式,计算墙板与钢基础间的最大静摩擦系数,研究耗能件对预应力墙体耗能能力的提高效果。结果表明：预应力CLT剪力墙具有良好的抗侧力性能,且加载结束后墙体试件几乎完好;位于上、下层墙板间的CLT 钢组合楼板系统能够在有效传递层间竖向力的同时,缓解其中的CLT楼板可能发生较大横纹受压变形的问题;耗能件能够一定程度上提高预应力CLT剪力墙的耗能能力,然而,耗能件与CLT墙板的连接方式还有进一步改进的空间。     

Numerical modelling of two full-scale reinforced soil wrapped-face walls

The paper reports the details of numerical models used to predict the performance of two 3.6 m-high well-instrumented wrapped-face walls. The walls were nominally identical except that the reinforcement material in one wall was a steel welded wire mesh and in the other a biaxial polypropylene geogrid. The backfill soil was modelled using both linear and nonlinear elastic-plastic constitutive models. A general hyperbolic (nonlinear) axial load-strain-time model was used for the reinforcement. The numerical results show good agreement with measured performance features for the welded wire mesh wrapped-face wall. Agreement between numerical predictions of facing displacements and maximum reinforcement loads was less accurate for the very flexible geogrid wrapped-face wall. The discrepancies are believed to be related to the unusually flexible wrapped face used in the geogrid wall construction. Numerically predicted and measured maximum reinforcement loads are compared to loads using the AASHTO reinforcement strength-based design approach (Simplified Method) and the Simplified Stiffness Method which is an empirical reinforcement stiffness-based method. The paper provides physical test data that can be used to benchmark other numerical models, highlights lessons learned during the development of the models, and identifies reasonable expectations for numerical model accuracy for models of similar complexity used to simulate the performance of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall structures under operational conditions.