岩土力学 ›› 2019, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (S1): 32-40.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2019.0255

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

增压式真空预压加固吹填超软土微观结构特征分析

雷华阳1, 2,胡垚1,雷尚华1,祁子洋1,许英刚1   

  1. 1. 天津大学 建筑工程学院,天津 300350;2. 天津大学 滨海土木工程结构与安全教育部重点实验室,天津 300350
  • 收稿日期:2019-01-27 出版日期:2019-08-01 发布日期:2019-08-12
  • 作者简介:雷华阳,女,1974年生,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事岩土工程等方面的教学和科研工作
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划项目(No.2017YFC0805402);国家自然科学基金项目(No.51578371);土木工程防灾国家重点实验室开发基金(No.SLDRCE17-01);天津市自然科学基金京津冀合作专项(No.16JCJDJC40000)。

Analysis of microstructure characteristics of air-booster vacuum preloading for ultra-soft dredger fills

LEI Hua-yang1, 2, HU Yao1, LEI Shuang-hua1, QI Zi-yang1, XU Ying-gang1   

  1. 1. School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China; 2. Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China
  • Received:2019-01-27 Online:2019-08-01 Published:2019-08-12
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China(2017YFC0805402), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)(51578371), the Open Project of State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering (SLDRCE17-01), and the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Special Projects of Cooperation (16JCJDJC40000).

摘要: 先进行常规真空预压法(CVP)和增压式真空预压法(AVP)两组模型试验,分别对吹填超软土进行加固处理,对比分析其加固效果。再利用电镜扫描试验(SEM)和压汞试验(MIP)分别对两种方式加固后的吹填超软土进行微观结构测试,分析在两种加固方式下吹填超软土微观结构特征的变化,并通过Image-Pro Plus图像处理技术进行定量分析,模型试验结果分析表明增压式真空预压的加固效果优于常规真空预压,从土体骨架颗粒形态、骨架颗粒接触形式和骨架颗粒间孔隙3个角度说明了增压式与常规真空预压加固后土体的微观结构特征变化,微观结构定量分析表明,与常规真空预压相比,增压式真空预压加固后土体的孔隙数量、扁平度K、形状系数ff更大;土体的孔隙率、分形维数D更小;定向概率熵Hm没有明显的变化规律;孔径分布增量的峰值位置在左侧,说明增压式真空预压加固后土体的小孔隙数量更多。从微观角度证明了增压式真空预压法的加固效果优于常规真空预压法。

关键词: 增压式真空预压, 吹填超软土, 模型试验, 微观结构, 定量分析, 电镜扫描试验(SEM), 压汞试验(MIP)

Abstract: Two sets of model tests using the conventional vacuum preloading(CVP) method and the air-booster vacuum preloading(AVP) method, were implemented to strengthen the ultra-soft dredger fills and compare their reinforcement effect. The microstructure characteristics of ultra-soft dredger fills after two methods of reinforcement were investigated using scanning electron microscope(SEM) and mercury intrusion porosimetry(MIP), respectively. A comparative analysis was performed with respect to variables microstructure characteristics of ultra-soft dredger fills, and quantitative analysis was conducted by Image-Pro Plus graphics processing technology under the two reinforcement methods. The model test results show that the reinforcement effect of AVP method is better than that of CVP method. The microstructural characteristics of soil reinforced by two methods were analyzed from three aspects: the morphology of soil skeleton particles, the contact form of soil skeleton particles and the pore space between soil skeleton particles. Compared with CVP method, the microstructure quantitative analysis results indicate that the number of pores, flattening degree K and shape coefficient ff of soil are larger, whereas the porosity and fractal dimension D of soil are smaller after reinforcement in AVP method. However, the directional probabilistic entropy Hm has no obvious change rule, and the peak of the aperture distribution increment is on the left, indicating a greater number of small pores by using AVP method. Furthermore, it is proved that the reinforcement effect of the AVP method is superior to that of CVP method from the microscopic aspect.

Key words: air-booster vacuum preloading, ultra-soft dredger fills, model test, microstructure, quantitative analysis, scanning electron microscope(SEM), mercury intrusion porosimetry(MIP)

中图分类号: 

  • TU 443
[1] 徐刚, 张春会, 于永江, . 综放工作面覆岩破断和压架的试验研究及预测模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(S1): 106-114.
[2] 赵怡晴, 吴常贵, 金爱兵, 孙浩, . 热处理砂岩微观结构及力学性质试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2233-2240.
[3] 张磊, 海维深, 甘浩, 曹卫平, 王铁行, . 水平与上拔组合荷载下柔性单桩 承载特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2261-2270.
[4] 黄巍, 肖维民, 田梦婷, 张林浩, . 不规则柱状节理岩体力学特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2349-2359.
[5] 邹新军, 曹雄, 周长林, . 砂土地基中受水流影响的竖向力−水平力联合 受荷桩承载特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1855-1864.
[6] 程永辉, 胡胜刚, 王汉武, 张成. 深埋砂层旁压特征参数的深度效应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1881-1886.
[7] 朱楠, 刘春原, 赵献辉, 王文静, . 不同应力路径下K0固结结构性黏土 微观结构特征试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1899-1910.
[8] 史林肯, 周辉, 宋明, 卢景景, 张传庆, 路新景, . 深部复合地层TBM开挖扰动模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1933-1943.
[9] 宁奕冰, 唐辉明, 张勃成, 申培武, 章广成, 夏丁, . 基于正交设计的岩石相似材料配比研究及 底摩擦物理模型试验应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 2009-2020.
[10] 蒲诃夫, 潘友富, KHOTEJA Dibangar, 周洋. 絮凝-水平真空两段式脱水法处理高 含水率疏浚淤泥模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(5): 1502-1509.
[11] 孙银磊, 汤连生, 刘洁, . 非饱和土微观结构与粒间吸力的研究进展[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1095-1122.
[12] 刘功勋, 李威, 洪国军, 张坤勇, CHEN Xiu-han, 施绍刚, RUTTEN Tom. 大比尺切削模型试验条件下砂岩破坏特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1211-1218.
[13] 杜宇翔, 盛谦, 王帅, 付晓东, 罗红星, 田明, 王立纬, 梅鸿儒. 昔格达组半成岩微观结构与力学性质研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(4): 1247-1258.
[14] 汤明高, 李松林, 许 强, 龚正峰, 祝 权, 魏 勇. 基于离心模型试验的库岸滑坡变形特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 755-764.
[15] 宋丁豹, 蒲诃夫, 陈保国, 孟庆达, . 高填方减载式刚性涵洞受力特性模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 823-830.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!