• ISSN 0258-2724
  • CN 51-1277/U
  • EI Compendex
  • Scopus
  • Indexed by Core Journals of China, Chinese S&T Journal Citation Reports
  • Chinese S&T Journal Citation Reports
  • Chinese Science Citation Database
OU Zhijing, XIE Mingqin, QIN Zhiqing, LIN Shangshun, YU Jie. Seismic Performance Test and FEM Analysis of Assembled Concrete Pier with Sleeve and Steel Tube Shear Connector[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2021, 56(6): 1169-1175, 1191. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20191177
Citation: FANG Binxin, LIU Sihong, LU Yang, CHEN Shuang, ZHANG Chengbin. Experimental Study on Vertical Bearing Capacity and Cyclic Compression Behavior of Soilbags[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2023, 58(1): 210-218. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20210028

Experimental Study on Vertical Bearing Capacity and Cyclic Compression Behavior of Soilbags

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20210028
  • Received Date: 11 Jan 2021
  • Rev Recd Date: 12 Apr 2021
  • Available Online: 23 Sep 2022
  • Publish Date: 15 Apr 2021
  • Soilbags have been successfully applied to the reinforcement of building foundation with obvious effect on seismic isolation, but their deformation characteristics under dynamic load have not been studied in depth yet. In order to further analyze the vertical bearing capacity and deformation characteristics of soilbags, a series of laboratory unconfined ultimate loading tests and cyclic compression tests were conducted, and the effect of the number of loading cycles, the static load, and the cyclic load ratio on the dynamic characteristics of soilbags was studied in terms of the vertical stress-strain variation and the dynamic compression modulus. The test results show that with the increase of the number of layers, the ultimate strength of stacked soilbags decreased gradually and tended to a stable value of 0.7 MPa, and the peak compression modulus also decreased and stabilized at 6.73 MPa. An obvious plastic deformation of stacked soilbags was observed at the beginning of the cyclic compression test, and the vertical residual strain generated in each cycle decreased gradually and tended to zero with the increase of the number of cycles. The dynamic compression modulus was basically stable throughout the whole testing process, and was not affected by the number of cyclic loads. With the increase of the upper static load, the dynamic compression modulus of the stacked soilbags increased gradually. After 200 cycles of loading, the dynamic compression modulus of soilbags with the static load of 50 kN reached 53.87 MPa. However, it significantly decreased with the increased cyclic load ratio. When the cyclic load ratio was 0.4, the dynamic compression modulus of soilbags could still reached 49.39 MPa after 200 cycles of loading. In general, under the action of vertical dynamic load, the soilbags can satisfy the requirements of bearing capacity and stability as a kind of seismic isolation material.

     

  • 桥梁建筑工业化是我国建筑业的发展方向之一,其中预制拼装混凝土桥墩具有施工快速、绿色环保、对既有交通和环境影响小等特点,近年来备受国内外关注,具有广阔应用前景[1-2].

    目前装配式混凝土桥墩的主要连接方式有灌浆套筒、预应力筋连接、灌浆金属波纹管等. 近年来研究者们对不同连接构造的预制装配式混凝土桥墩的抗震性能开展了试验研究及数值分析. 文献[3-4]对7组不同配箍率和钢筋强度下的预应力筋连接的装配式混凝土桥墩的拟静力试验,试验结果表明,7组预应力节段拼装桥墩的耗能能力低于整体体现浇混凝土桥墩;文献[5]开展了灌浆套筒连接的装配式桥墩与现浇式桥墩的抗震性能对比试验,试验结果表明,与整体式桥墩相比,装配式桥墩的水平承载力与前者相当,位移延性与累积耗能能力稍差、残余位移偏大;文献[6]提出了一种内嵌小钢管的预应力装配式桥墩,并对试件的抗震性能指标进行了有限元分析,研究发现内嵌小钢管的加入有效改善了预应力连接装配式桥墩的抗剪和耗能性能,避免了结构在接缝处发生剪切破坏;文献[7]开展了金属波纹管拼装桥墩和整体现浇桥墩的双向拟静力试验,试验结果表明,灌浆波纹管的钢筋连接方式可靠,主要抗震性能指标的差异较小,是一种可行的连接方式;文献[8]研究了灌浆波纹管中所需的锚固钢筋的长度,进行单调荷载下的试验研究,发现带有金属波纹管的构件具有较好的结构性能;文献[9]设计了一种新的套筒连接结构,可发挥该套筒极限抗拉承载能力,还可提高对接钢筋误差容许范围并防止灌浆料的滑移.

    综上所述,如今世界各地的研究主要集中在传统连接方式的装配式桥墩[10-11],但传统的连接方式存在传力模式单一、灌浆质量和连接效果不易保证等问题,为此工程界提出了采用带钢管剪力键的灌浆套筒连接的装配式桥墩,具有定位准确、施工方便、传力可靠等优点. 但对采用钢管剪力键等新型连接方式的装配式桥墩的相关研究较少. 为深入了解和掌握该类新型桥墩结构的破坏机制和地震响应行为,本文制作了3根方形桥墩试件,开展单向拟静力试验,并采用ABAQUS软件进行数值模拟,分析试件在往复荷载作用下的抗震性能指标,对比不同连接方式对混凝土桥墩抗震性能的影响规律并对新型桥墩进行参数分析.

    本文以沈海高速公路福厦段扩容二期工程某桥为原型,设计了3种类型桥墩结构,缩尺比例为1∶6,具体构造见图1. 其中:Z-1试件为整体现浇式桥墩;T-1试件为传统灌浆套筒连接的装配式桥墩;G-1试件为采用钢管剪力键连接的装配式桥墩. 轴压比n = 0.15.

    图  1  桥墩构造
    Figure  1.  Configuration of piers

    3种类型桥墩试件高度h相同,均为2.88 m,墩身截面尺寸为360 mm × 360 mm,配有8根直径为12 mm的纵筋,箍筋直径为8 mm,间距100 mm;现浇承台截面尺寸为800 mm × 800 mm,高500 mm.

    T-1和G-1试件在承台与预制墩身连接处沿外周均匀设置8个灌浆套筒. 其中,G-1试件在墩底和承台顶部各预埋一个钢管作为剪力键,钢管剪力键的尺寸依据:参考钢筋的植筋深度确定钢管剪力键的嵌入深度为150 mm,参考叠合格构柱相关规范[12]确定半径为160 mm,厚度为6 mm. 试件制作时,将墩身与承台分别进行钢筋绑扎、搭建模板、混凝土浇筑,在墩身钢筋骨架内设定位置预埋灌浆套筒;墩身和承台钢筋骨架相应位置对上下嵌套钢管进行定位,养护至满足强度要求时,将承台上的预留钢筋与墩身的灌浆套筒一一对应进行拼接,拼接完成后开始进行压浆作业. 为让高强灌浆料能充满整个套筒,从套筒下部的压浆孔灌浆,直至上部出浆孔排出压浆料停止. G-1桥墩试件制作流程见图2.

    图  2  G-1桥墩制作流程
    Figure  2.  Pier production process of G-1

    混凝土强度等级为C40,采用Q345钢材,使用HRB400热轧钢筋,灌浆材料高强灌浆料,座浆料使用自拌超高性能混凝土,材料性能如表1所示.

    表  1  材料性能参数
    Table  1.  Mechanical property parameters of material
    材料类型弹性模
    量/MPa
    屈服强度/MPa极限强
    度/MPa
    泊松比
    C40 混凝土3250044.2
    灌浆料38600121.8
    HRB400
    钢筋
    206000424.2604.30.30
    钢套筒206000202.5302.10.30
    钢管206000365.0433.50.29
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    加载装置见图3,通过承台预留的孔洞用4根高强螺杆将桥墩试件固定于地槽,并在水平方向安装千斤顶防止发生偏移. 由固定在钢横梁上的液压千斤顶施加竖向荷载,由固定在反力墙上的水平作动器施加水平荷载. 主要测试内容包括了纵筋应变、外部混凝土应变、墩身位移情况.

    图  3  桥墩试件试验装置图及加载实景
    Figure  3.  Testing device of bridge pier and loading scene

    采用位移控制的拟静力加载方案进行试验,通过控制油泵保持千斤顶在竖向施加轴压比0.15的荷载,使用MTS试验系统对各桥墩试件施加水平位移. 试件屈服前,从0开始逐级递增2 mm直至试件屈服,试件屈服后,以屈服位移的倍数进行循环加载,每级位移循环3次加载至试件破坏.

    试件破坏形态见图4. Z-1试件的试验现象如下:滞回位移为15 mm时,出现了3条裂缝;滞回位移为50~70 mm时,不断出现新裂缝并扩展;滞回位移为80 mm时,混凝土保护层轻微起皮;滞回位移为90 mm时,墩身裂缝扩展,墩身两侧墙底混凝土掉落;当滞回位移为100 mm的3次循环加载完毕,结束试验.

    图  4  桥墩试件破坏形态
    Figure  4.  Overall failure of pier specimen

    T-1试件的试验现象如下:滞回位移为15 mm时,出现了3条裂缝;滞回位移为50~80 mm时,沿加载方向侧己有裂缝扩展并延伸至垂直加载方向侧,墩底交界面处出现轻微裂缝;滞回位移为90 mm时,混凝土保护层轻微起皮;当滞回位移为100 mm的3次循环加载完毕,结束试验.

    G-1试件的试验现象如下:滞回位移为10 mm时,出现了1条裂缝;滞回位移为60 mm时,墩底交界面处裂缝扩展,东、西侧墩身出现若干新裂缝;滞回位移为80 mm时,墩身裂缝扩展,混凝土保护层轻微起皮;滞回位移为90 mm时,墩身裂缝扩展,混凝土成块剥落;当滞回位移为100 mm的3次循环加载完毕,结束试验.

    从试验现象看出:Z-1、T-1、G-1试件的破坏形态都属于弯曲性破坏,延性较好;连接方式的不同不影响桥墩试件破坏形式. 从图4(d)可以看出:钢管剪力键处于完好状态,管内混凝土未发生破坏.

    采用ABAQUS软件分别建立各个桥墩试件的有限元计算模型. 采用C3D8R单元模拟混凝土,采用Truss(T3D2)单元模拟钢筋,采用Shell(S4R)单元模拟钢管. 混凝土本构采用Kent-Park模型[13],钢材本构选择Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto模型[14]. 收敛准则采用牛顿迭代法(N-P).

    3类桥墩试件均采用内置区域的连接方式进行墩身钢筋骨架与混凝土墩柱的耦合,承台底端进行固定约束. 对于装配式桥墩试件T-1和G-1,其数值模型中墩身与承台部件之间的接触采用“罚”函数摩擦模型与“硬”接触约束模型,G-1模型中的承台钢管剪力键与墩身钢管采用绑定约束模拟.

    图5为试验和模拟条件下Z-1、T-1、G-1试件的荷载-位移滞回曲线. 由图5可知:Z-1试件的滞回曲线呈梭形且在试件屈服以后下降较为平稳,T-1和G-1试件的滞回曲线呈纺锤形,T-1在卸载承载力骤降,而G-1未发生此现象;G-1试件比T-1的滞回曲线更为饱满,抗震性能更优,总体来说各桥墩试件均具有良好的抗震性能,能较好地吸收和耗散地震能量;由于存在构件加工精度、现场浇筑以及试验方面等误差,有限元计算结果与试验结果有略微差距,但有限元计算结果与试验结果吻合良好,滞回环的形状和面积均较接近,说明采用本文建立的有限元模型可较准确地模拟实际情况下的各个桥墩试件的抗震性能.

    图  5  桥墩试件的滞回曲线
    Figure  5.  Hysteresis loops of pier specimens

    图6为各个试件的骨架曲线,由图6可得:Z-1、T-1、G-1 3类桥墩试件的骨架曲线大致呈直—曲—直线型,即弹性阶段—屈服阶段—下降段;试件在达到屈服位移后具有显著的强度下降且下降幅度相近.

    图  6  各试件的骨架曲线
    Figure  6.  Skeleton curves of specimens

    试验骨架曲线特征值见表2. 试验与有限元模拟得到的各试件骨架曲线特征值对比见表3.

    表  2  骨架曲线主要参数对比
    Table  2.  Comparison of main parameters of skeleton curves
    试件Py/kNΔy/mmPmax/kNPu/kNΔu/mmµu
    Z-123.749.4239.6033.6688.829.43
    T-120.079.3434.2029.0794.0610.07
    G-123.299.3539.5033.58100.0010.70
    注:Py为屈服荷载;Δy为屈服位移;Pmax为水平峰值荷载;Pu为极限荷载;Δu为极限位移;µu为位移延性系数.
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    表  3  骨架曲线特征值对比
    Table  3.  Comparison of skeleton curve characteristics
    试件
    编号
    弹性刚度屈服荷载峰值荷载峰值荷载位移下降段刚度
    试验/
    (kN•mm−1
    模拟/
    (kN•mm−1
    误差/
    %
    试验/
    kN
    模拟/
    kN
    误差/
    %
    试验/
    kN
    模拟/
    kN
    误差/
    %
    试验/
    mm
    模拟/
    mm
    误差/
    %
    试验/
    (kN•mm−1
    模拟/
    (kN•mm−1
    误差/
    %
    Z-1 2.47 2.37 −4.20 23.74 25.20 5.80 39.60 41.69 5.00 40.01 39.95 −0.20 −0.17 −0.16 −6.30
    T-1 2.15 2.19 1.80 18.07 19.34 6.60 34.20 35.67 4.10 50.00 50.10 0.20 −0.14 −0.13 −7.70
    G-1 2.41 2.49 3.20 23.29 24.15 3.60 39.50 40.67 2.90 49.20 48.63 −1.20 −0.98 −0.96 2.10
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    图6表2可以看出:各试件的承载力从大到小依次为Z-1、G-1、T-1,即新型钢管剪力键装配式桥墩的水平峰值荷载与整体现浇桥墩接近,且比传统的灌浆套筒装配式桥墩提高了13.41%,是由于钢管剪力键的布置加强了预制混凝土墩身与承台之间的连接强度,因此在水平往复荷载作用下承载力得到较为明显的提升;各试件的极限位移从大到小依次为G-1、T-1、Z-1,说明新型钢管剪力键和传统灌浆套筒连接的装配式桥墩的后期变形能力更强,在极限位移这一参数指标上比整体式桥墩分别提高了11.18%和5.57%.

    表3数据对比可知:有限元计算结果与试验结果的误差不超过8%,说明有限元模型能较准确地模拟出各桥墩试件的骨架曲线.

    延性性能是评价桥梁结构抗震性能的重要参数之一. 由表2可知:各试件均有很好的延性性能,延性从大到小依次为G-1、T-1、Z-1,G-1的位移延性系数分别比Z-1、T-1试件提高了11.87%和5.89%. 而钢管剪力键的设置加强了装配式混凝土桥墩的整体性,从而增大了试件受力后期的变形能力,延缓了结构破坏,因此钢管剪力键装配式桥墩表现出更良好的位移延性性能.

    采用累积耗能Ehyst来评价Z-1、T-1、G-1桥墩试件的耗能能力,累积耗能曲线见图7.

    图  7  各试件的累积耗能
    Figure  7.  Cumulative energy consumption capacity of piers

    图7可以看出:在加载初期各桥墩试件的耗能能力较弱,随着水平位移的逐级加载,试件的耗能能力逐渐增大,滞回环愈加饱满,构件吸收更多能量,耗能能力逐渐增强;不同连接方式对混凝土桥墩试件累积滞回耗能的影响较小,滞回耗能曲线基本重合,试验数值较为接近,相差在3%以内

    为研究3类桥墩试件在水平反复荷载作用下的刚度退化情况,绘制各级位移荷载下桥墩试件的割线刚度值,如图8所示.

    图  8  刚度退化曲线
    Figure  8.  Stiffness degradation curves

    图8可以看出:3类桥墩试件的初始刚度相差不大,均在6.2 kN/mm左右;破坏时的刚度均在0.35 kN/mm左右;加载位移40 mm以前刚度退化均较明显,曲线下降速率较快;在加载位移达到40 mm以后的刚度无明显变化.

    为探究不同参数下带钢管剪力键的装配式桥墩与传统灌浆套筒连接桥墩的抗震性能差异,在不同参数下对两类装配式桥墩进行对比.

    轴压比分别取0.10、0.15、0.20、0.25、0.30;长细比(λ)分别取4、6、8、10、12;混凝土强度等级分别取C20~C60;钢筋强度等级分别取HRB300、HRB335、HRB400、HRB500,两类装配式桥墩的峰值荷载和位移延性系数的对比见图910.

    图  9  峰值荷载对比
    Figure  9.  Peak load comparison
    图  10  位移延性系数对比
    Figure  10.  Displacement ductility coefficient comparison

    图9可看出:在不同参数时,带钢管剪力键连接的装配式桥墩的峰值荷载都高于传统灌浆套筒连接桥墩,两者的比值在1.04~1.32,均值为1.11.

    图10可看出:不同参数时,带钢管剪力键连接的装配式桥墩的位移延性系数都高于传统灌浆套筒连接桥墩,两者的比值在1.08~1.36,均值为1.12.

    为了进一步了解带钢管剪力键装配式桥墩的抗震性能,本文以G-1为标准模型开展有限元拓展参数分析,探讨不同参数情况下该类桥墩的荷载-位移骨架曲线的变化规律.

    试件的轴压比分别取0.10、0.15、0.20、0.25、0.30,其余参数与标准模型相同. 不同轴压比时桥墩荷载-位移骨架曲线的对比如图11所示.

    图  11  不同轴压比下骨架曲线对比
    Figure  11.  Skeleton curves under different axial comparison ratios

    图11可以发现:随着n由0.1增大至0.3,桥墩水平峰值荷载增大了23.00%,峰值荷载位移无明显变化,下降段刚度略有增大.

    试件的长细比分别取4、8、12、16、20,其余参数与标准模型相同. 不同长细比时桥墩荷载-位移骨架曲线如图12所示.

    图  12  不同长细比下各构件骨架曲线比较
    Figure  12.  Skeleton curves with different slenderness ratios

    图12可知:随着λ从4增大至20,桥墩骨架曲线峰值荷载降低了157.00%,峰值荷载位移增大了71.10%,弹性刚度、下降段刚度呈不同程度降低.

    试件钢管剪力键的嵌入深度h (与桥墩边长比值)分别取150 mm(0.4)、200 mm(0.6)、250 mm(0.7)、300 mm(0.8),其余参数与标准模型相同. 剪力键不同嵌入深度时桥墩荷载-位移骨架曲线如图13所示,由图13可以看出:随着h增大桥墩的水平峰值荷载提高了4.76%,峰值荷载位移、下降段刚度无明显变化.

    图  13  不同嵌入深度骨架曲线对比
    Figure  13.  Skeleton curves under different embedded depths

    试件的钢管壁厚t (与钢管半径比值)分别取2 mm(0.03)、8 mm(0.10)、14 mm(0.18)、20 mm(0.25),其余参数与标准模型相同. 不同t时桥墩荷载-位移骨架曲线如图14所示,由图14可以看出:当壁厚从2 mm增加至8 mm时,各骨架曲线变化较小,随着壁厚继续增大,桥墩的峰值荷载增大15.44%,下降段刚度略有降低,峰值荷载位移无明显变化.

    图  14  不同钢管壁厚时骨架曲线对比
    Figure  14.  Skeleton curves under different steel tube thicknesses

    试件的钢管直径d (与墩径比值)分别取120 mm(0.33)、150 mm(0.42)、180 mm(0.50)、210 mm(0.58),其余参数与相同. 不同钢管壁厚时桥墩荷载-位移骨架曲线如图15所示,由图15可以看出:随着钢管半径增大,桥墩峰值荷载提高了6.82%,下降段刚度增大了71.43%.

    图  15  不同钢管直径骨架曲线对比
    Figure  15.  Skeleton curves under different steel tube diameters

    1) 3类桥墩破坏均为弯曲型破坏,相同滞回位移水平下,3类桥墩的累积耗能能力、强度退化基本相当. 带钢管剪力键连接的装配式桥墩的滞回曲线呈较为饱满的纺锤形,具有良好的整体抗震性能.

    2) 带钢管剪力键连接桥墩与整体现浇桥墩相比峰值荷载基本相当,位移延性系数提高了11.87%;与灌浆套筒连接桥墩相比,该桥墩有效改善抗震性能,峰值荷载提高了13.41%,位移延性系数提高了5.89%.

    3) 带钢管剪力键连接桥墩的承载力随着轴压比从0.1增大至0.3,桥墩水平峰值荷载增大了23.00%;长细比由4增大至20, 试件峰值荷载降低了157.00%, 峰值荷载位移增大了71.10%.

    4) 钢管嵌入深度由150 mm增大至300 mm,水平峰值荷载提高了4.76%;钢管壁厚从2 mm增大至20 mm,桥墩的峰值荷载增大15.44%; 钢管直径由120 mm增大至210 mm,峰值荷载提高了6.82%,下降段刚度增大了71.43%.

    致谢:感谢福建工程学院科研发展基金(GY-Z17148)的支持.

  • [1]
    李杰, 李国强. 地震工程学导论[M]. 北京: 地震出版社, 1992.
    [2]
    KELLY J M, KONSTANTINIDIS D A. Mechanics of rubber bearings for seismic and vibration isolation[M]. Manhattan: Wiley, 2011.
    [3]
    尚守平,张斌,肖逸夫,等. 基础隔震低层框架结构振动台试验研究[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,2019,39(4): 30-40. doi: 10.13197/j.eeev.2019.04.30.shangsp.004

    SHANG Shouping, ZHANG Bin, XIAO Yifu, et al. Shaking table test of base isolation low-rise frame structure[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2019, 39(4): 30-40. doi: 10.13197/j.eeev.2019.04.30.shangsp.004
    [4]
    周福霖. 隔震、消能减震与结构控制体系——终止我国城乡地震灾难的必然技术选择[J]. 城市与减灾,2016(5): 1-10.
    [5]
    窦远明,刘晓立,赵少伟,等. 砂垫层隔震性能的试验研究[J]. 建筑结构学报,2005,26(1): 125-128. doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2005.01.020

    DOU Yuanming, LIU Xiaoli, ZHAO Shaowei, et al. An experimental study of isolating properties of sand cushion[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2005, 26(1): 125-128. doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2005.01.020
    [6]
    尹志勇,景立平,孙海峰,等. 农村房屋地基砂垫层隔震系统振动台试验研究[J]. 建筑结构学报,2020,41(6): 30-37. doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2019.0901

    YIN Zhiyong, JING Liping, SUN Haifeng, et al. Experimental study on sand cushion isolation system for foundations of rural house by shaking table test[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2020, 41(6): 30-37. doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2019.0901
    [7]
    刘斯宏, 王艳巧, 胡晓平, 等. 一种土工袋减震隔震建筑基础及其施工方法和应用: CN 101914922 B[P]. 2011-12-14.
    [8]
    白福青,刘斯宏,王艳巧. 土工袋加固原理与极限强度的分析研究[J]. 岩土力学,2010,31(增1): 172-176. doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2010.s1.054

    BAI Fuqing, LIU Sihong, WANG Yanqiao. Research on reinforcement mechanism and failure strength of soilbags[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2010, 31(S1): 172-176. doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2010.s1.054
    [9]
    DING G Y, WU J L, WANG J, et al. Experimental study on vibration reduction by using soilbag cushions under traffic loads[J]. Geosynthetics International, 2018, 25(3): 322-333. doi: 10.1680/jgein.18.00010
    [10]
    LIU S H, JIA F, CHEN X L, et al. Experimental study on seismic response of soilbags-built retaining wall[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2020, 48(5): 603-613. doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.03.006
    [11]
    SHENG T, BIAN X C, LIU G B, et al. Experimental study on the sandbag isolator of buildings for subway-induced vertical vibration and secondary air-borne noise[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2020, 48(4): 504-515. doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.02.008
    [12]
    LIU S H, GAO J J, WANG Y Q, et al. Experimental study on vibration reduction by using soilbags[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2014, 42(1): 52-62. doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.12.007
    [13]
    WANG Y Q, LI X, LIU K, et al. Experiments and DEM analysis on vibration reduction of soilbags[J]. Geosynthetics International, 2019, 26(5): 551-562. doi: 10.1680/jgein.19.00045
    [14]
    中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 建筑地基基础设计规范: GB 50007—2011[S]. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2012.
    [15]
    于海英,王栋,杨永强,等. 汶川8.0级地震强震动加速度记录的初步分析[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,2009,29(1): 1-13. doi: 10.13197/j.eeev.2009.01.001

    YU Haiying, WANG Dong, YANG Yongqiang, et al. The preliminary analysis of strong ground motion records from the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan Earthquake[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2009, 29(1): 1-13. doi: 10.13197/j.eeev.2009.01.001
    [16]
    MARTIN G R, FINN W D L, SEED H B. Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading[J]. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1975, 101(5): 423-438. doi: 10.1061/AJGEB6.0000164
    [17]
    谢定义. 土动力学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2011.
    [18]
    MOGHADDAS TAFRESHI S N, RAHIMI M, DAWSON A R, et al. Cyclic and post-cycling anchor response in geocell-reinforced sand[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2019, 56(11): 1700-1718. doi: 10.1139/cgj-2018-0559
    [19]
    焦贵德,赵淑萍,马巍,等. 循环荷载下冻土的滞回圈演化规律[J]. 岩土工程学报,2013,35(7): 1343-1349.

    JIAO Guide, ZHAO Shuping, MA Wei, et al. Evolution laws of hysteresis loops of frozen soil under cyclic loading[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 35(7): 1343-1349.
  • Relative Articles

    [1]CHEN Ming, LU Weibo, WU Zhiyuan, LI Bushuan. Investigation on In-Plane Stability of Double-Limb Cold-Formed C-Shaped Steel Rigid Frame of Yurt[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2022, 57(1): 215-222. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20210567
    [2]SU Qiwang, LI Yi, BU Qingtao, CHENG Quanlin, HANI Meree. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Fired Hollow Bricks Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame with Horizontal Slip Layers[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2022, 57(1): 223-228, 234. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20200278
    [3]SU Qiwang, ZHANG Yan, XU Ziyi, CAI Hongru. Full-Scale Tests on Seismic Behavior of RC Frames Infilled with Hollow Bricks[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2017, 30(3): 532-539. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2017.03.013
    [4]DENG Weili, XIAO Nan, YONG Yuan. Numerical Simulation of Monitoring Wheel-Rail Contact Conditions Using Ultrasonic Technology[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2014, 27(6): 1073-1077. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2014.06.020
    [5]WANG Weihua, LIAO Haili, LI Mingshui. Numerical Simulation of Wind-Induced Roof Snow Distributions Based on Time Variable Boundary[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2013, 26(5): 851-856,967. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2013.05.011
    [6]SHI Jianjun, CHENG Zhiqiang, LIU Baosheng. Modified Algorithm for Simulation of Injection Molding Process[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2012, 25(6): 962-967. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2012.06.009
    [7]CHEN Xiao'an, SHANG Fujun, SONG Shuncheng. Numerical Simulation of Temperature Distribution of Induction Plasma Torch in Preparation of Superfine Powder[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2011, 24(2): 271-276. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2011.02.016
    [8]CHENG Zhi-Jiang, BARRIERE T, LIU Bao-Sheng, GELIN J C. Experiment and Numerical Simulation of Micro-injection Moulding[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2010, 23(4): 635-638. doi: 10. 3969/ j. issn. 0258-2724.
    [9]CAO Jixing, CHEN Qiu, ZHANG Jiping. Simulation of SHPB Test on Concrete and Uniformity of Stresses[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2008, 21(1): 67-70.
    [10]WANG Heshun, CHEN Cichang, WANG Jinnuo. Numerical Simulation of Face Flow Field for Dry Gas Seal[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2007, 20(5): 568-573.
    [11]CAO Xiaojun, ZHANG Jichun, LU Helin, GUO Jianqun. Numerical Simulation of Ground Vibration Effects in Shallow Tunneling Blasting[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2006, 19(6): 680-684.
    [12]WUBo, GAO Bo, LUOJian-jun. Numerical Simulation of Reinforcing Effect of Horizontal Drilling Jet-Grouting Pegs on Shenzhen Metro Tunnel between Stations[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2004, 17(5): 605-608.
    [13]TONG Bing, ZHU Bing, ZHOU Ben-kuan. Numerical Simulation of Velocity Field of Flow Around Square Cylinder[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2002, 15(2): 121-124.
    [14]CHENG Qian-gong, HUHou-tian. Discrete Element Simulation of Full-Course Kinematics of Rocky High-Speed Landslide[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2000, 13(1): 18-22.
    [15]Lei Bo , Liu Yingqing. Simulation of Pressure on Overline Bridge Due to High-Speed Train Passage[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 1999, 12(3): 259-263.
    [17]Zhu Bing, Guan Baoshu, ZhengDaofang. Numerical Simulation of Longitudinal Ventilation of Long Highway Tunnel[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 1999, 12(2): 133-137.
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(0)

    Other cited types(3)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-040510152025
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 21.9 %FULLTEXT: 21.9 %META: 73.7 %META: 73.7 %PDF: 4.4 %PDF: 4.4 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 6.3 %其他: 6.3 %其他: 0.6 %其他: 0.6 %Seattle: 0.2 %Seattle: 0.2 %[]: 0.4 %[]: 0.4 %上海: 0.2 %上海: 0.2 %临汾: 0.6 %临汾: 0.6 %兵库县: 0.4 %兵库县: 0.4 %北京: 12.8 %北京: 12.8 %南京: 1.7 %南京: 1.7 %南宁: 0.2 %南宁: 0.2 %南阳: 0.4 %南阳: 0.4 %哈尔滨: 0.2 %哈尔滨: 0.2 %哥伦布: 0.4 %哥伦布: 0.4 %天津: 0.2 %天津: 0.2 %太原: 0.2 %太原: 0.2 %宣城: 0.2 %宣城: 0.2 %布加勒斯特: 0.4 %布加勒斯特: 0.4 %广州: 0.4 %广州: 0.4 %延安: 0.2 %延安: 0.2 %张家口: 2.3 %张家口: 2.3 %成都: 2.3 %成都: 2.3 %扬州: 0.8 %扬州: 0.8 %揭阳: 0.2 %揭阳: 0.2 %新加坡: 0.2 %新加坡: 0.2 %杭州: 0.2 %杭州: 0.2 %池州: 1.0 %池州: 1.0 %沈阳: 0.2 %沈阳: 0.2 %深圳: 0.8 %深圳: 0.8 %温州: 0.6 %温州: 0.6 %湛江: 0.2 %湛江: 0.2 %漯河: 1.5 %漯河: 1.5 %烟台: 0.2 %烟台: 0.2 %石家庄: 0.4 %石家庄: 0.4 %福州: 0.2 %福州: 0.2 %芒廷维尤: 11.6 %芒廷维尤: 11.6 %芝加哥: 1.1 %芝加哥: 1.1 %衡水: 0.6 %衡水: 0.6 %西宁: 45.8 %西宁: 45.8 %西安: 0.2 %西安: 0.2 %西雅图: 0.2 %西雅图: 0.2 %诺沃克: 0.2 %诺沃克: 0.2 %贵阳: 1.0 %贵阳: 1.0 %运城: 1.0 %运城: 1.0 %郑州: 0.6 %郑州: 0.6 %重庆: 0.4 %重庆: 0.4 %长沙: 0.4 %长沙: 0.4 %青岛: 0.2 %青岛: 0.2 %香港特别行政区: 0.2 %香港特别行政区: 0.2 %其他其他Seattle[]上海临汾兵库县北京南京南宁南阳哈尔滨哥伦布天津太原宣城布加勒斯特广州延安张家口成都扬州揭阳新加坡杭州池州沈阳深圳温州湛江漯河烟台石家庄福州芒廷维尤芝加哥衡水西宁西安西雅图诺沃克贵阳运城郑州重庆长沙青岛香港特别行政区

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(12)

    Article views(383) PDF downloads(21) Cited by(3)
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return