›› 2016, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (2): 446-452.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2016.02.018

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

干湿循环作用下高低液限黏土防渗性能对比研究

赵立业1, 2,薛 强1, 2,万 勇1,刘 磊1   

  1. 1.中国科学院武汉岩土力学研究所 岩土力学与工程国家重点实验室,湖北 武汉 430071; 2.中国科学院武汉岩土力学研究所 湖北省固体废弃物安全处置与生态高值化利用工程技术研究中心,湖北 武汉 430071
  • 收稿日期:2014-09-15 出版日期:2016-02-11 发布日期:2018-06-09
  • 通讯作者: 薛强,男,1975年生,博士,研究员,博士生导师,主要从事固体废弃物安全处置与填埋场灾变机理方面的研究。 E-mail:qiangx@whrsm.ac.cn E-mail:zly_cersm@163.com
  • 作者简介:赵立业,男,1990年生,硕士研究生,主要从事生态岩土力学与工程方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金(No. 51279199);国家重点基础研究发展计划项目(973项目)(No. 2012CB719802);国家重大水专项课题(No. 2011ZX07104-002-02)。

A comparative study of anti-seepage performance of clays with high and low liquid limits under drying-wetting cycles

ZHAO Li-ye 1, 2, XUE Qiang1, 2, WAN Yong1, LIU Lei1   

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; 2. Hubei Provincial Engineering Research Center of Safety Treatment and Ecological High-value Utilization of MSW, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China
  • Received:2014-09-15 Online:2016-02-11 Published:2018-06-09
  • Supported by:

    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51279199), the National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China (973 Program) (2012CB719802) and the Major National Water Project(2011ZX07104-002-02).

摘要: 针对低、中、高3种干密度的低液限和高液限压实黏土,开展经历干湿循环过程的渗透系数和孔隙结构变化特征对比研究。结果表明:经3次干湿循环后,相同液限条件下,高压实黏土渗透系数增加比例高于低压实黏土;相同干密度条件下,高液限黏土渗透系数增加比例高于低液限黏土。干湿循环过程中,压实黏土孔隙结构损伤对渗透系数影响随着压实度和液限的提高而加大,而裂隙的发育对渗透系数影响随着压实度的增加和液限的降低而降低。干湿循环过程中低液限压实黏土试样只收缩不开裂,而高液限黏土裂隙发育明显,小尺寸渗透试样无法完全反映裂隙发育对渗透系数的影响,其渗透系数的变化更多是孔隙结构的变化所致,建议通过现场渗透试验或室内大尺寸渗透试验对干湿循环作用下不同液限黏土渗透系数的差异作进一步研究。

关键词: 填埋场, 压实黏土, 液限, 渗透系数, 孔隙结构

Abstract: The changes of permeability coefficient and pore structure of clays with high liquid limit and low liquid limit after drying-wetting cycles are compared. For each clay three densities are examined. The results show that after three drying-wetting cycles a larger increase in permeability coefficient is observed in clay with high degree of compaction than that with low degree of compaction when the liquid limits are the same. At the same dry density, the clay with high liquid limit exhibits larger increase in permeability coefficient than low liquid limit clay after drying-wetting circles. During the drying-wetting process, the influence of pore structural damage on permeability coefficient increases as compactness and liquid limit increase. The influence of cracks on permeability coefficient, however, decreases when the compactness increases and the liquid limit decreases. In contrast to low liquid limit clay which does not crack but shrinks after drying-wetting cycles, high liquid limit clay forms significant cracks. The change in permeability coefficient of the samples of the small size is mainly caused by the pore structure, and cannot reflect the influence of cracks. It is suggested that further research on the difference between permeability coefficients of clays with different liquid limits under drying-wetting cycles be carried out through permeability test on site or indoor large-size permeability test.

Key words: landfill, compacted clay, liquid limit, permeability coefficient, pore structure

中图分类号: 

  • TU 442

[1] 桂跃, 吴承坤, 赵振兴, 刘声钧, 刘锐, 张秋敏. 微生物分解有机质作用对泥炭土工程性质的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(S1): 147-155.
[2] 薛阳, 吴益平, 苗发盛, 李麟玮, 廖康, 张龙飞. 库水升降条件下考虑饱和渗透系数空间变异性的白水河滑坡渗流变形分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(5): 1709-1720.
[3] 范日东, 杜延军, 刘松玉, 杨玉玲, . 无机盐溶液作用下砂−膨润土竖向隔离屏障 材料化学相容性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 736-746.
[4] 盛建龙, 韩云飞, 叶祖洋, 程爱平, 黄诗冰, . 粗糙裂隙水、气两相流相对渗透系数模型与数值分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 1048-1055.
[5] 李红坡, 陈征, 冯健雪, 蒙宇涵, 梅国雄, . 双层地基水平排水砂垫层位置优化研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 437-444.
[6] 彭家奕, 张家发, 沈振中, 叶加兵, . 颗粒形状对粗粒土孔隙特征和渗透性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 592-600.
[7] 王刚, 韦林邑, 魏星, 张建民, . 压实黏土三轴压缩变形过程中的渗透性变化规律[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 32-38.
[8] 刘丽, 吴羊, 陈立宏, 刘建坤, . 基于数值模拟的湿润锋前进法测量精度分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 341-349.
[9] 徐浩青, 周爱兆, 姜朋明, 刘顺青, 宋苗苗, 陈亮, . 不同砂−膨润土垂直防渗墙填筑土料的掺量研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 424-430.
[10] 李玲, 刘金泉, 刘造保, 刘桃根, 王伟, 邵建富, . 砂-黏土混合物高压压实性能试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3502-3514.
[11] 李杰林, 朱龙胤, 周科平, 刘汉文, 曹善鹏, . 冻融作用下砂岩孔隙结构损伤特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3524-3532.
[12] 张玉国, 万东阳, 郑言林, 韩帅, 杨晗玥, 段萌萌. 考虑径向渗透系数变化的真空预压 竖井地基固结解析解[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3533-3541.
[13] 胡明鉴, 崔 翔, 王新志, 刘海峰, 杜 韦, . 细颗粒对钙质砂渗透性的影响试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 2925-2930.
[14] 李 贤, 汪时机, 何丙辉, 沈泰宇, . 土体适用MICP技术的渗透特性条件研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 2956-2964.
[15] 范日东, 刘松玉, 杜延军, . 基于改进滤失试验的重金属污染 膨润土渗透特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 2989-2996.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!