中美规范灌注桩单桩抗压承载力计算对比  

Comparison of vertical compressive bearing capacity calculation forsingle filling pile between Chinese and American codes

作　　者：巴蕾 关玉君 刘杰[1] BA Lei;GUAN Yu-jun;LIU Jie(CCCC Water Transportation Consultants Co.,Ltd.,Beijing 100007,China;China Harbor Engineering Co.,Ltd.,Beijing 100027,China)

机构地区：[1]中交水运规划设计院有限公司,北京100007 [2]中国港湾工程有限责任公司,北京100027

出　　处：《水运工程》2020年第4期150-155,共6页Port & Waterway Engineering

摘　　要：灌注桩单桩抗压承载力的计算是高桩码头及公路桥梁设计的重要组成部分。随着国内设计单位走出去的步伐逐渐加快,设计人员应快速掌握并应用不同国家的设计规范。通过对比中国的《码头结构设计规范》《公路桥涵地基与基础设计规范》和美国的《公路桥梁设计规范》,得出不同规范在灌注桩侧阻及端阻计算细节、安全系数储备等方面的异同点。依托实际工程,结合钻探地质资料,比较3种规范对应的单桩竖向抗压承载力大小,并评价各规范优缺点。结果表明,两个中国规范操作相对简单但遇到特殊土质时受限,美国规范概念明确且适用范围更广,但计算过程相对复杂。The calculation of compressive bearing capacity of single filling pile is an important part of high-piled wharf and highway bridge design.With the trend of domestic engineering enterprises expanding overseas markets,the engineers are required to master and exercise design codes of different countries in a short time.By comparing Chinese Design Code for Wharf Structures,Design Code for Ground Base and Foundation of Highway Bridges and Culverts,and American AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,we obtain the differences and similarities in side resistance and end resistance calculation details and reserve of safety factor.Based on the local drilling geological data of practical engineering,we compare the vertical compressive bearing capacity of single filling pile corresponding to the three codes,and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each code.The results show that the two Chinese codes are relatively simple but limited when encountering special soil.The American code has a clear concept and a wider scope of application,but the calculation process is relatively complex.

关 键 词：灌注桩 单桩抗压承载力 中国规范 美国规范 

分 类 号：U652.7[交通运输工程—港口、海岸及近海工程] U655.55[交通运输工程—船舶与海洋工程]