›› 2014, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (S1): 341-346.

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

空沟对冲击荷载隔离的现场试验与数值模拟

徐 平1,张天航1,石明生1,刘干斌2   

  1. 1. 郑州大学 交通运输工程系,郑州 450001;2. 宁波大学 土木工程系,浙江 宁波 315211
  • 收稿日期:2013-06-15 出版日期:2014-06-10 发布日期:2014-06-20
  • 作者简介:徐平,男,1977年生,博士,副教授,主要从事岩土动力学方面研究
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金资助(No. 51008286,No. 51278467)。

In-situ test and numerical simulation of isolation of impact loads by open trenches

XU Ping1,ZHANG Tian-hang1,SHI Ming-sheng1,LIU Gan-bin2   

  1. 1. Department of Transportation Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China; 2. Department of Civil Engineering, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315211, China
  • Received:2013-06-15 Online:2014-06-10 Published:2014-06-20

摘要: 在场地开挖了一条空沟,以落锤式弯沉仪(falling weight deflectometer,简写为FWD)的荷载模拟冲击荷载,通过FWD自带的传感器测得空沟后一定范围内的竖向位移。通过室内试验,获取试验场地的岩土参数,采用非线性动力有限元软件ABAQUS建立二维模型(将远处单元定义为无限单元来模拟吸收边界,从而避免振动波的来回反射)。以空沟中心线的现场测试数据为依据,校核有限元模型。通过分析不同工况模拟的竖向位移,研究得出空沟-荷载间距、沟深、沟宽等对隔振效果的影响。结果表明,(1) 空沟-荷载间距越小,隔振效果越好,但实际隔振工程中,为避免振动对空沟侧壁的稳定性的影响,空沟与振源不宜太近,因此可以不计空沟-荷载间距对隔振效果的影响;(2) 就提高隔振效果而言,增大沟深比增大沟宽更有效,而相同的隔振效果,窄-深沟的挖方量远小于宽-浅沟;(3) 在对冲击荷载进行隔振设计时,对于一般的民用和工业建筑,综合隔振效果、开挖和支护费用等因素,采用宽度为0.5~1.0 m,深度为2.0~2.5 m的空沟较为合理,与某工程实例进行比对,验证结论的合理性。

关键词: 空沟, 冲击荷载, 隔振效果, 现场试验, 数值模拟

Abstract: An open trench was excavated at the field, the falling weight deflectometer (FWD)is adopted to replace the impact loads, and the vertical displaces in the near areas behind the trench are measured with the sensors of the FWD. The geotechnical parameters of the fields are in-door tested; the nonlinear dynamic finite element software of ABAQUS is adopted to establish a two-dimensional model, in which the far elements are defined as infinite to simulate the absorbing boundary; and so the vibration caused by wave bounces at the boundaries are avoided; and the FEM model is modified according to the in-situ tested vertical displacements. The vertical displacements of different conditions are simulated; the factors that influence the vibration isolation effects are analyzed; such as trench depth, trench width and distance between trench and impact loads. Some conclusions are drawn as follows. (1) The vibration isolation effects increase when the distance between trench and impact loads decrease; but in the actual vibration isolation engineering, the trench can not be constructed much near to the impact loads to guarantee the stability of the trench walls; so the distance between trench and impact loads should not be considered as an important factor in the vibration isolation design. (2) As to improve the vibration isolation effects, to increase the trench depth is much effective than the trench width, and a narrow and deep trench usually need much less excavation than a wide and shallow trench. (3) When designing the vibration isolation of normal civil and industrial buildings for impact loads, an open trench with 0.5-1.0 m width and 2.0-2.5 m depth is relatively reasonable by considering the isolation effects, excavation and maintenance fees; it is proved to be reasonable by comparing with one vibration isolation engineering.

Key words: open trench, impact loads, vibration isolation effects, in-situ test, numerical simulation

中图分类号: 

  • TU 435
[1] 李翻翻, 陈卫忠, 雷江, 于洪丹, 马永尚, . 基于塑性损伤的黏土岩力学特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 132-140.
[2] 夏 坤, 董林, 蒲小武, 李璐, . 黄土塬地震动响应特征分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 295-304.
[3] 郭院成, 李明宇, 张艳伟, . 预应力锚杆复合土钉墙支护体系增量解析方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 253-258.
[4] 闫国强, 殷跃平, 黄波林, 张枝华, 代贞伟, . 三峡库区巫山金鸡岭滑坡成因机制与变形特征[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 329-340.
[5] 刘红岩. 宏细观缺陷对岩体力学特性及边坡稳定影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 431-439.
[6] 金爱兵, 刘佳伟, 赵怡晴, 王本鑫, 孙浩, 魏余栋, . 卸荷条件下花岗岩力学特性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 459-467.
[7] 韩征, 粟滨, 李艳鸽, 王伟, 王卫东, 黄健陵, 陈光齐, . 基于HBP本构模型的泥石流动力过程SPH数值模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 477-485.
[8] 吴锦亮, 何吉, . 岩质边坡动态开挖模拟的复合单元模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 535-540.
[9] 陆晨凯, 孔纲强, 孙广超, 陈斌, 殷高翔, . 桩−筏基础中能量桩热−力耦合特性现场试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3569-3575.
[10] 吴凤元, 樊赟赟, 陈剑平, 李军, . 基于不同侵蚀模型的高速崩滑碎屑 流动力过程模拟分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3236-3246.
[11] 孙峰, 薛世峰, 逄铭玉, 唐梅荣, 张翔, 李川, . 基于连续损伤的水平井射孔-近井筒三维破裂模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3255-3261.
[12] 冯君, 王洋, 吴红刚, 赖冰, 谢先当, . 玄武岩纤维复合材料土层锚杆抗拔性能 现场试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2563-2573.
[13] 穆锐, 浦少云, 黄质宏, 李永辉, 郑培鑫, 刘 旸, 刘 泽, 郑红超, . 土岩组合岩体中抗拔桩极限承载力的确定[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2825-2837.
[14] 吴爽爽, 胡新丽, 龚辉, 周昌, 徐楚, 王强, 应春业, . 3种模式下钻孔灌注桩桩-土剪切特性 现场试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2838-2846.
[15] 金俊超, 佘成学, 尚朋阳. 基于应变软化指标的岩石非线性蠕变模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2239-2246.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 关云飞,高 峰,赵维炳,俞 缙. ANSYS软件中修正剑桥模型的二次开发[J]. , 2010, 31(3): 976 -980 .
[2] 米海珍,高 春. 生石灰膨胀特性的试验研究[J]. , 2010, 31(4): 1253 -1256 .
[3] 孙熙平,张宝华,张 强,王笑难. 重力式码头基床遭水流冲刷后的稳定性分析[J]. , 2010, 31(10): 3184 -3190 .
[4] 陈敬虞,龚晓南,邓亚虹. 软黏土层一维有限应变固结的超静孔压消散研究[J]. , 2009, 30(1): 191 -195 .
[5] 孙 建 ,王连国 ,唐芙蓉 ,沈义峰 ,龚世龙. 倾斜煤层底板破坏特征的微震监测[J]. , 2011, 32(5): 1589 -1595 .
[6] 杨永香 ,周 健 ,贾敏才 ,胡金虎. 饱和砂土液化特性的可视化试验研究[J]. , 2011, 32(6): 1643 -1648 .
[7] 徐正明,薛 强,赵 颖. 改性污泥复合材料时间效应三轴力学特性试验研究[J]. , 2011, 32(6): 1713 -1718 .
[8] 陈 明 ,胡英国 ,卢文波 ,严 鹏 ,周创兵. 锦屏二级水电站引水隧洞爆破开挖损伤特性研究[J]. , 2011, 32(S2): 172 -177 .
[9] 王 涛 ,李 杨 ,周 勇 ,吕 庆 ,刘大炜. 关于磷石膏尾矿库安全专篇的研究[J]. , 2011, 32(S2): 407 -412 .
[10] 乔春江 ,陈卫忠 ,王 辉 ,田洪铭 ,谭贤君. 浅埋破碎地层隧道施工方法研究[J]. , 2011, 32(S2): 455 -462 .