大厚度自重湿陷性黄土湿陷变形特性水分入渗规律及地基处理方法研究

›› 2011, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (S2): 100-108.

大厚度自重湿陷性黄土湿陷变形特性水分入渗规律及地基处理方法研究

黄雪峰^{1, 2}，张广平³，姚志华¹，张建华⁴

1. 后勤工程学院建筑工程系，重庆 401311；2. 兰州理工大学，土木工程学院，兰州 730030； 3. 国家电网甘肃省电力设计院，兰州 730050；4. 中煤邯郸设计工程有限责任公司，河北邯郸 056031

收稿日期:2011-04-27 出版日期:2011-08-10 发布日期:2011-08-26
作者简介:黄雪峰，男，1960年生，博士，高级工程师，主要从事湿陷性黄土地基处理、桩基工程等方面的设计与研究
基金资助:
国家电网公司科学技术项目资助（No. SGKJJSKF[2008]656）。

Research on deformation, permeability regularity and foundation treatment method of dead-weight collapse loess with heavy section

HUANG Xue-feng^{1, 2}, ZHANG Guang-ping³, YAO Zhi-hua¹, ZHANG Jian-hua⁴

1. Department of Architectural Engineering, Logistical Engineering University, Chongqing 401331, China; 2. School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou University of Science and Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China; 3. Gansu Electric Power Design Institute, Lanzhou 730050, China; 4. Handan Design Engineering China Coal Co., Ltd., Handan, Hebei 056031, China

Received:2011-04-27 Online:2011-08-10 Published:2011-08-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为研究大厚度自重湿陷性黄土的湿陷变形特性、水分入渗规律以及地基处理合理方法等问题，选择典型大厚度自重湿陷性黄土场地，进行了布置沉降观测点和埋设水分计的浸水试验以及挤密桩、DDC（孔内深层强夯）桩地基处理试验。试验结果表明，在水分入渗过程中，深度22.5～25.0 m以上土体易发生湿陷，该深度以下土体则含水率增加缓慢，达不到湿陷起始含水率，不易发生湿陷，因此该深度考虑可作为现场湿陷性评价的临界深度，也可作为大厚度湿陷性黄土地区进行地基处理时可参考的地基处理下限深度。DDC桩间距为1.0～1.4 m时，无论从挤密系数还是湿陷系数都能满足规范要求；挤密桩15 m试验区域沉降量较小，但其剩余湿陷量任未满足要求，这也佐证了关于22.5～25.0 m深度难于发生湿陷的结论。试验成果可作为今后大厚度自重湿陷性黄土地区工程建设以及黄土规范进一步修订的参考。

关键词: 大厚度自重湿陷性黄土, 浸水试验, 地基处理, 湿陷变形, 入渗, 剩余湿陷量

Abstract: In order to research on deformation, permeability regularity and optimum methods of foundation treatment in the area of dead-weight collapse loess with heavy section, large-scale soaking tests with observing points arranged and moisture meters buried, and collapsible loess treatment tests with down hole deep compaction(DDC) and (lime) soil compaction pile were carried out. Research results indicate that: in water infiltration process, soil with depth above 22.5-25.0 m is more vulnerable to collapse; and soil with depths below 22.5-25.0 m whose moisture content increases slowly so as to reach hardly collapsible starting moisture content, it is not easy to collapse; therefore, these depth 22.5-25.0 m, depth can be used as critical depths for on-site collapsibility evaluation; but also can be taken as the reference foundation treatment floor depth in large thickness collapsible loess area when the foundation is treated. Average compacting factors and coefficient of collapsibility of different pile spacing between 1.1 m and 1.4 m are in accord with the requirement of “Code”. The settlement of (lime) soil compaction pile in 15.0 m area is small; but its remnant collapse doesn’t satisfy with the “Code”. The research results also support the conclusion that loess below depths of 22.5-25.0 m collapses difficultly. The test results might be useful to similar projects in the area of dead-weight collapse loess with heavy section and to revise “Code for building construction in collapsible loess regions”.

Key words: dead weight collapse loess with heavy section, soaking test, foundation treatment, collapse deformation, permeability, remnant collapse

中图分类号:

TU 444

黄雪峰，张广平，姚志华，张建华. 大厚度自重湿陷性黄土湿陷变形特性水分入渗规律及地基处理方法研究[J]. , 2011, 32(S2): 100-108.

HUANG Xue-feng , ZHANG Guang-ping , YAO Zhi-hua , ZHANG Jian-hua. Research on deformation, permeability regularity and foundation treatment method of dead-weight collapse loess with heavy section[J]. , 2011, 32(S2): 100-108.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	苏永华, 李诚诚. 强降雨下基于Green-Ampt模型的边坡稳定性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 389-398.
[2]	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.
[3]	朱彦鹏, 杜晓启, 杨校辉, 栗慧王君, . 挤密桩处理大厚度自重湿陷性黄土地区综合管廊地基及其工后浸水试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 2914-2924.
[4]	詹良通, 胡英涛, 刘小川, 陈捷, 王瀚霖, 朱斌, 陈云敏. 非饱和黄土地基降雨入渗离心模型试验及多物理量联合监测[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2478-2486.
[5]	汪华斌, 李建梅, 金怡轩, 周博, 周宇, . 降雨诱发边坡破坏数值模拟两个关键问题的解决方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(2): 777-784.
[6]	姚志华, 陈正汉, 方祥位, 黄雪峰, . 非饱和原状黄土弹塑性损伤流固耦合模型及其初步应用 [J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(1): 216-226.
[7]	姚志华，连杰，陈正汉，朱元青，方祥位，. 考虑细观结构演化的非饱和Q3 原状黄土弹塑性本构模型[J]. , 2018, 39(5): 1553-1563.
[8]	朱才辉，郭炳煊. 古建筑基座渗漏监测及诱因分析[J]. , 2018, 39(11): 4210-4217.
[9]	康孝森，廖红建，冷先伦，郝东瑞,. 入渗影响下黄土边坡张拉裂缝极限深度探讨[J]. , 2017, 38(S2): 197-202.
[10]	岳浩淼，黄建明，文桃，米海珍，. 换填覆重法处理砂类硫酸盐渍土地基的室内模拟试验[J]. , 2017, 38(2): 471-478.
[11]	安鹏，张爱军，邢义川，倪万魁，张博,. 伊犁深厚湿陷性黄土浸水入渗及沉降变形特征分析[J]. , 2017, 38(2): 557-564.
[12]	郑俊杰，郭震山，崔岚，张军,. 考虑非饱和渗流与增湿膨胀下的膨胀土隧道稳定性分析[J]. , 2017, 38(11): 3271-3277.
[13]	熊勇林，朱合华，叶冠林，叶斌,. 降雨入渗引起非饱和土边坡破坏的水-土-气三相渗流-变形耦合有限元分析[J]. , 2017, 38(1): 284-290.
[14]	张洁，吕特，薛建锋，郑文棠,. 适用于斜坡降雨入渗分析的修正Green-Ampt模型[J]. , 2016, 37(9): 2451-2457.
[15]	豆红强，韩同春，龚晓南，李智宁，邱子义,. 降雨条件下考虑饱和渗透系数变异性的边坡可靠度分析[J]. , 2016, 37(4): 1144-1152.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed