›› 2018, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (10): 3900-3906.

• 测试技术 • 上一篇    下一篇

黄河冲积层静止土压力系数原位测定与分析

王国富1,曹正龙1,路林海1,王 蓉2,王 丹1,韩 帅1   

  1. 1. 济南轨道交通集团有限公司,山东 济南 250101;2. 山东省地矿工程勘察院,山东 济南 250050
  • 收稿日期:2016-12-29 出版日期:2018-10-11 发布日期:2018-11-04
  • 通讯作者: 曹正龙,男,1990年生,硕士,工程师,主要从事岩土与地下工程方面的研究工作。E-mail: caobohe@163.com E-mail:metro_jinan@126.com
  • 作者简介:王国富,男,1964年生,博士,研究员,主要从事岩土工程、结构工程方面的研究与管理工作
  • 基金资助:
    山东省自然科学基金(No. ZR2017MEE065);济南市优秀创新团队(No. 济政字[2016]40号);济南市社会民生重大专项(No. 201704140)。

Measurement and analysis about coefficient of earth pressure at rest in alluvium of the Yellow river

WANG Guo-fu1, CAO Zheng-long1, LU Lin-hai1, WANG Rong2, WANG Dan1, HAN Shuai1   

  1. 1. Jinan Rail Transit Group Co., Ltd., Jinan, Shandong 250101, China; 2. Shandong Provincial Geo-mineral Engineering Exploration Institute, Jinan, Shandong 250050, China
  • Received:2016-12-29 Online:2018-10-11 Published:2018-11-04
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2017MEE065), the Excellent Innovation Team of Jinan ([2016]40) and the Major Program of Social and People’s Livelihood of Jinan (201704140).

摘要: 静止土压力系数K0与其他物理力学性质相互制约,变化特征复杂,加之试验条件、理论假设条件不同,表达形式多样,结果迥异。依托济南地铁工程勘察,采用原位土体水平压力测定仪(KSB)对济南西北部黄河厚冲积层现场测试,将测试结果与原位旁压试验、室内侧压力仪K0试验结果,以及考虑黏性土内摩擦角、塑性指数的K0计算公式进行对比,分析表明:KSB测试结果以指数形式插值推算原位静止土压力系数更优;20 m深度范围内黄河冲积层黏性土可近似为正常固结饱和状态,K0介于0.4~0.7之间并随埋深减小,而Jaky公式计算值偏高,室内土工试验K0值偏低;以固结快剪内摩擦角 或等效内摩擦角 修正Jaky公式的计算结果更接近KSB实测值。

关键词: 黏性土, 静止土压力系数, 原位测试, 内摩擦角

Abstract: Earth pressure coefficient at rest of soil, K0, varies due to different stress conditions. Besides, it interacts with other physical and mechanical properties of the soils. Based on the geological survey of Jinan subway project, the horizontal pressure of the thick alluvial cohesive soil from Yellow River in northwest of Jinan was tested by the in-situ soil pressure tester, K0 stepped blade (KSB). To verify the test results, other test methods are also adopted, such as the lateral loading test, indoor K0 test by side pressure gauge as well as common calculation formula taking internal friction angle and plasticity index of cohesive soil into consideration. According to the comparative analysis of the results by different methods, the results can be obtained as follows. In the form of exponential interpolation, test results from KSB are superior in presuming the in-situ earth pressure coefficient at rest. The cohesive soil in the Yellow River alluvial layer can be approximately in normal consolidation saturated state inside the range of 0-20 m. K0 changes between 0.4 to 0.7 and decreases with the increase of depth. The value of K0 is on the high side with Jaky formula’s result and on the low side with indoor test. The calculation results obtained by Jaky formula are close to that of measured by KSB when introduce equivalent angle of internal friction and internal friction angle obtained by consolidated quick shear test.

Key words: cohesive soil, coefficient of earth pressure at rest, in-situ test, internal friction angle

中图分类号: 

  • TU 413
[1] 白雪元, 王学滨, 舒芹, . 静水压力下内摩擦角对圆形洞室围岩局部破裂 影响的连续-非连续模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2485-2493.
[2] 陈建功, 杨扬, 陈彦含, 陈小兵. 考虑抗拉强度的黏性填土挡土墙主动土压力计算[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1829-1835.
[3] 喻昭晟, 陈晓斌, 张家生, 董亮, ABDOULKADER M S. 粗颗粒土的静止土压力系数非线性分析与计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(6): 1923-1932.
[4] 王龙, 朱俊高, 郭万里, 陆阳洋, . 无黏性土压缩模型及其验证[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 229-234.
[5] 严健, 何川, 晏启祥, 许金华. 雀儿山隧道冰碛地层冻胀力原位测试及计算分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3593-3602.
[6] 刘忠玉, 崔鹏陆, 郑占垒, 夏洋洋, 张家超. 基于非牛顿指数渗流和分数阶Merchant模型的 一维流变固结分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2029-2038.
[7] 王学滨,张 楠,潘一山,张博闻,杜亚志,. 单轴压缩黏性土剪切带相互作用及损伤试验研究[J]. , 2018, 39(4): 1168-1175.
[8] 闫澍旺,李 嘉,闫 玥,陈 浩,. 黏性土地基中竖向圆孔的极限稳定深度研究[J]. , 2018, 39(4): 1176-1181.
[9] 孙德安,张乾越,张 龙,朱赞成,. 高庙子膨润土强度时效性试验研究[J]. , 2018, 39(4): 1191-1196.
[10] 颜荣涛,纪文栋,陈星欣,张 芹,韦昌富,. 盐溶液饱和黏土的力学行为模拟[J]. , 2018, 39(2): 546-552.
[11] 田 密, 张 帆, 李丽华, . 间接测量数据条件下岩土参数空间变异性 定量分析方法对比研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2018, 39(12): 4673-4680.
[12] 高彦斌. 移动状态边界面法在黏性土不排水蠕变孔压分析中的应用[J]. , 2018, 39(11): 4176-4182.
[13] 杨吉龙,袁海帆,胡云壮,胥勤勉,施佩歆,陈永胜,. 天津滨海地区深部黏土层弹塑性变形特征与地面沉降关系研究[J]. , 2018, 39(10): 3763-3772.
[14] 纠永志,黄茂松, . 超固结软黏土的静止土压力系数与不排水抗剪强度[J]. , 2017, 38(4): 951-957.
[15] 张国祥,王 敏. 新建筑边坡规范地震主动土压力计算公式的推导及完善[J]. , 2017, 38(4): 1097-1102.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!