检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]中交二公局第四工程有限公司,河南洛阳471013 [2]中国路桥工程有限责任公司,北京100011 [3]云南建工第二建设有限公司,昆明650203
出 处:《路基工程》2016年第5期119-125,共7页Subgrade Engineering
摘 要:针对黄土地区摩擦桩基极限承载力的确定,分别进行静载试验及数值分析,计算得出桩顶沉降值、极限承载力、桩身轴力、桩侧摩阻力、荷载分担比等参数的分布情况。数值分析与现场试验对比结果表明:两种方法在达到预估最大加载量时,桩顶沉降值误差仅为3.34%,桩端荷载分担比仅相差0.07%;确定的极限承载力误差为0.01%;数值分析所得桩身轴力和桩侧摩阻力分布规律与现场实际情况吻合良好。证明所采用的数值分析方法较为贴近工程实际,验证了方法的可靠性。In relation to the determination of ultimate bearing capacity of friction pile in loess area, the static load test and numerical analysis were carried out respectively to find out the distribution of parameters, such as pile top subsidence, ultimate bearing capacity, pile body axial force, pile side friction and load sharing ratio. The result of comparison between numerical analysis and field test shows that, at the time of reaching the estimated maximum loading force, the difference of pile top subsidence obtained by the two methods is 3.34% only, and that of pile end load sharing ratio 0.07% only; the error of the determined ultimate bearing capacity is 0.01%; the pile body axial force and pile side friction obtained by numerical analysis have the distribution law in good agreement with the actual situation. Therefore, it is demonstrated that the numerical analysis used herein is close to engineering practice, and its reliability verified.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.118.207.114