›› 2012, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3): 641-651.

• 基础理论与实验研究 •    下一篇

不同水化状态下的压实膨胀土应力-应变-强度特征

周葆春1, 2,孔令伟1,郭爱国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,武汉 430071;2. 信阳师范学院 土木工程学院,河南 信阳 464000
  • 收稿日期:2011-09-06 出版日期:2012-03-10 发布日期:2012-03-12
  • 作者简介:周葆春,男,1978年生,博士,副教授,主要从事土体力学性质与本构模型方面的研究工作
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金资助项目(No. 51009118);中国博士后科学基金资助项目(No. 20100470058);河南省基础与前沿技术研究计划项目 (No. 082300410180);河南省高等学校青年骨干教师资助计划项目(No. 2008083)。

Stress-strain-strength behaviour of compacted expansive soil under different hydration states

ZHOU Bao-chun1, 2, KONG Ling-wei1, GUO Ai-guo1   

  1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, China; 2. College of Civil Engineering, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang, Henan 464000, China
  • Received:2011-09-06 Online:2012-03-10 Published:2012-03-12

摘要: 为探讨水化状态对饱和压实膨胀土应力-应变-强度特征的影响,以压实度为95%的荆门弱膨胀土为研究对象,开展了2种典型水化状态下的固结与三轴试验,其中第1种水化状态采用常规饱和方法,第2种水化状态为试样自由膨胀至稳定状态。结果表明:(1)受变形约束条件与渗径的影响,不同水化状态下体膨胀率有较大差别;(2)第2种水化状态下的饱和压实膨胀土具有更大的硬化指数λ与膨胀指数κ、较小的弹性剪切模量,其有效内摩擦角为第1种水化状态下的77.2%,体现出膨胀土饱和强度的变动性;(3)2种水化状态下的固结曲线均呈现出明显的屈服现象,其屈服应力分别为123.2 kPa与94.5 kPa;(4)第1种水化状态下,低围压下试样应变软化与剪胀,高围压下应变强化与剪缩;第2种水化状态下试验围压范围内均发生剪缩和轻微的应变软化;(5)2种水化状态下试样在固结与剪切过程中均表现出超固结性,这种超固结性并非完全由先期固结压力所致,而是试样受荷过程中膨胀受到约束造成的;(6)不同水化饱和状态下初始孔隙比不同,膨胀势也不同,膨胀势与外部约束条件、排水条件、应力状态相互作用,造成其应力-应变-强度特征的差异性。

关键词: 膨胀土, 应力-应变-强度特征, 水化状态, 超固结性, 剑桥模型参数

Abstract: In order to investigate the effects of hydration state on the stress-strain-strength behaviour of compacted expansive soil, a series of mechanical property tests under one-dimensional consolidation and triaxial compression are carried out under two typical hydration states which are both saturated. The conventional saturation method is adopted for the first hydration state, while the second state permits samples swelling to steady state. The results show that there is a significant difference of volume expansion between the two hydration states; and the volume expansion rate is influenced by both the deformation constraint condition and the length of seepage. Compared with the first hydration state, the soil sample under the second hydration state has greater compression index λ , swelling index κ, and lower elastic shear modulus. The effective internal friction angle is 77.2% of the corresponding value of the first hydration state, which reflects the variability of saturated shear strength of the compacted expansive soil. The yield phenomena of consolidation curves can be observed with the yield stresses 123.2 kPa for the first hydration state and 94.5 kPa for the second hydration state. Under the first hydration state, the samples present strain softening and shear dilatancy at lower confining pressures, while they present strain hardening and shear contraction at higher confining pressures. Under the second hydration state, the samples present shear contraction and weak strain softening. The samples under the two hydration states show overconsolidation in the process of consolidation and shear loading. The overconsolidation is not due to preconsolidation pressure only; however, it is partially caused by that swelling of the soil is constrained in the process of loading. Under the different hydration states, the expansive soil has both different initial void ratios and different swelling potentials, while the interaction of the swelling potentials with external constraint conditions, drainage conditions and stress states leads to the complex stress-strain-strength behaviour.

Key words: expansive soil, stress-strain-strength behaviour, hydration state, over consolidation, Cam-clay model parameters

中图分类号: 

  • TU443
[1] 谢辉辉, 许振浩, 刘清秉, 胡桂阳, . 干湿循环路径下弱膨胀土峰值及残余强度演化研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 245-252.
[2] 刘祖强, 罗红明, 郑敏, 施云江, . 南水北调渠坡膨胀土胀缩特性及变形模型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 409-414.
[3] 李晶晶, 孔令伟, . 膨胀土卸荷蠕变特性及其非线性蠕变模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3465-3475.
[4] 陈永青, 文畅平, 方炫强, . 生物酶改良膨胀土的修正殷宗泽模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3515-3523.
[5] 李新明, 孔令伟, 郭爱国, . 南阳原状膨胀土不排水剪切性状时效性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 2947-2955.
[6] 李新明, 孔令伟, 郭爱国, . 考虑卸荷速率的K0固结膨胀土应力-应变行为[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(4): 1299-1306.
[7] 蔡正银, 朱 洵, 黄英豪, 张 晨. 冻融过程对膨胀土裂隙演化特征的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4555-4563.
[8] 李新明, 孔令伟, 郭爱国, . 卸荷损伤原状膨胀土剪切力学特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4685-4692.
[9] 梁维云, 韦昌富, 颜荣涛, 杨德欢. NaCl溶液饱和膨胀土的压缩特性及其微观机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(12): 4759-4766.
[10] 李新明, 孔令伟, 郭爱国, . 原状膨胀土剪切力学特性的卸荷速率 效应试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 3758-3766.
[11] 郑俊杰, 吕思祺, 曹文昭, 景 丹, . 高填方膨胀土作用下刚柔复合桩基 挡墙结构数值模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(1): 395-402.
[12] 李国维, 施赛杰, 侯宇宙, 吴建涛, 李 峰, 吴少甫, . 引江济淮试验工程非膨胀土开发技术实验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2018, 39(S2): 302-314.
[13] 庄心善, 王俊翔, 王 康, 李 凯, 胡 智. 风化砂改良膨胀土的动力特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2018, 39(S2): 149-156.
[14] 胡东旭,李 贤,周超云,薛 乐,刘洪伏,汪时机. 膨胀土干湿循环胀缩裂隙的定量分析[J]. , 2018, 39(S1): 318-324.
[15] 杨和平,唐咸远,王兴正,肖 杰,倪 啸,. 有荷干湿循环条件下不同膨胀土抗剪强度基本特性[J]. , 2018, 39(7): 2311-2317.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 王 飞,王 媛,倪小东. 渗流场随机性的随机有限元分析[J]. , 2009, 30(11): 3539 -3542 .
[2] 杨 强,刘耀儒,冷旷代,吕庆超,杨春和. 能源储备地下库群稳定性与连锁破坏分析[J]. , 2009, 30(12): 3553 -3561 .
[3] 孙曦源,栾茂田,唐小微. 饱和软黏土地基中桶形基础水平承载力研究[J]. , 2010, 31(2): 667 -672 .
[4] 王明年,郭 军,罗禄森,喻 渝,杨建民,谭忠盛. 高速铁路大断面黄土隧道深浅埋分界深度研究[J]. , 2010, 31(4): 1157 -1162 .
[5] 谭峰屹,姜志全,李仲秋,颜惠和. 附加质量法在昆明新机场填料压实密度检测中的应用研究[J]. , 2010, 31(7): 2214 -2218 .
[6] 柴 波,殷坤龙,肖拥军. 巴东新城区库岸斜坡软弱带特征[J]. , 2010, 31(8): 2501 -2506 .
[7] 刘汉龙,陶学俊,张建伟,陈育民. 水平荷载作用下PCC桩复合地基工作性状[J]. , 2010, 31(9): 2716 -2722 .
[8] 王观石,李长洪,胡世丽,冯 春,李世海. 岩体中应力波幅值随时空衰减的关系[J]. , 2010, 31(11): 3487 -3492 .
[9] 王维铭,孙 锐,曹振中,袁晓铭. 国内外地震液化场地特征对比研究[J]. , 2010, 31(12): 3913 -3918 .
[10] 徐 冲,刘保国,刘开云,郭佳奇. 基于粒子群-高斯过程回归耦合算法的滑坡位移时序分析预测智能模型[J]. , 2011, 32(6): 1669 -1675 .