›› 2014, Vol. 299 ›› Issue (2): 339-345.

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

高能量冲击作用下淤泥孔压特征规律试验研究

李彰明,刘俊雄   

  1. 广东工业大学 岩土工程研究所,广州 510006
  • 收稿日期:2013-08-18 出版日期:2014-02-11 发布日期:2014-02-18
  • 作者简介:李彰明,男,1955年生,博士,教授,主要从事岩土力学及软基处理等方面的研究工作
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金资助项目(No. 51178122)

Experimental study of pore water pressure variation law of muck under high energy impact

LI Zhang-ming, LIU Jun-xiong   

  1. Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • Received:2013-08-18 Online:2014-02-11 Published:2014-02-18

摘要: 以往动力排水固结室内试验,通常冲击能量不够,很难激发软土某些工程响应,对应加固机制难以发现。通过可提供高冲击能的多向高能高速电磁力冲击智能控制试验系统,针对淤泥类超软土进行静动力排水固结模型试验,获得了淤泥孔压等响应特征:夯击瞬间(6 ms)上部孔压增长及下降时间非常短,且其重复性好;初始两遍夯击结束后中部孔压变化呈双峰型,其时间间隔随着夯击遍数增加而逐渐变大,最后不复存在;每遍夯击瞬时中部土压均出现急剧增长与快速减小,增长幅度随夯击遍数增加呈减小趋势,但每遍夯完后数天内土压值均大于夯前值;每遍夯击孔压消散后最终值都小于初始孔压,说明在一定的排水条件下,淤泥这类超软土地基确实可夯击;夯击后残余应力作用机制存在,且其对沉降起主要作用,而一定静力荷载的这种机制不明显;排水板插设扰动效应不可忽视,但该扰动效应随软土埋深增大而减少。

关键词: 模型试验, 高能量冲击, 淤泥, 孔隙水压力, 特征规律

Abstract: General dynamic drainage consolidation laboratory test, as tamping impact energy is not enough, some basic mechanical responses of soft soil in the actual project are difficult to excite, and relative features of soil are difficult to find. Through the self-developed multi-directional high energy electromagnetic force impact test system which can provide high impact energy produced by electromagnetic force and therefore could simulate the tamping energy acted in practice engineering, static and dynamic drainage consolidation model test for muck, is carried out. The experimental study obtains the response characteristics of pore pressure of this ultra-soft soil as follows: the time that upper pore pressure increases sharply to the maximum, which is very short (only 6 ms) at impact instant, and after the peak it drops rapidly to a certain value; in the initial twice tamping, the curve of pore water pressure at middle deep position shows bimodal type, the time interval between the two peak increases with the increase of tamping times gradually, and finally disappeared; each tamping, instantaneous earth pressure in the middle position shows a sharp growth and rapid decrease, and growth magnitude with the increase of tamping times shows a trend of decrease, but earth pressure value after tamping several days later is still greater than the value before tamping each time; after each tamping dissipating, the final value of pore pressure is less than the initial pore pressure, which signifies that under the certain condition of drainage, such ultra-soft soil foundation can be, indeed, acted by dynamic loading; the action mechanism of residual stress produced by dynamic tamping for soil consolidation exists, and it plays a main role for settlement, but for certain static loading, corresponding mechanism is little; the disturbance effect of inserting drainage board could not be ignored, but the disturbance effect decreases with soft soil embedded depth.

Key words: model experiment, high energy impact, muck, pore water pressure, variation law

中图分类号: 

  • TU 447
[1] 王国辉, 陈文化, 聂庆科, 陈军红, 范晖红, 张川, . 深厚淤泥质土中基坑开挖对基桩 影响的离心模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 399-407.
[2] 陈贺, 张玉芳, 张新民, 魏少伟, . 高压注浆钢花管微型桩抗滑特性 足尺模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 428-436.
[3] 吴琪, 丁选明, 陈志雄, 陈育民, 彭宇, . 不同地震动强度下珊瑚礁砂地基中桩-土-结构 地震响应试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 571-580.
[4] 刘忠玉, 夏洋洋, 张家超, 朱新牧. 考虑Hansbo渗流的饱和黏土 一维弹黏塑性固结分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 11-22.
[5] 于丽, 吕城, 段儒禹, 王明年, . 考虑孔隙水压力及非线性Mohr-Coulomb破坏准则下浅埋土质隧道三维塌落机制的上限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 194-204.
[6] 于一帆, 王平, 王会娟, 许书雅, 郭海涛, . 堆积层滑坡地震动力响应的物理模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 172-180.
[7] 雷华阳, 胡垚, 雷尚华, 祁子洋, 许英刚, . 增压式真空预压加固吹填超软土微观结构特征分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(S1): 32-40.
[8] 王东坡, 陈政, 何思明, 陈克坚, 刘发明, 李明清, . 泥石流冲击桥墩动力相互作用物理模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3363-3372.
[9] 陈宇龙, 内村太郎, . 基于弹性波波速的降雨型滑坡预警系统[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3373-3386.
[10] 王钦科, 马建林, 陈文龙, 杨彦鑫, 胡中波, . 上覆土嵌岩扩底桩抗拔承载特性离心 模型试验及计算方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3405-3415.
[11] 卢谅, 石通辉, 杨东, . 置换减载与加筋复合处理方法对路基不 均匀沉降控制效果研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3474-3482.
[12] 杨文波, 邹涛, 涂玖林, 谷笑旭, 刘雨辰, 晏启祥, 何川. 高速列车振动荷载作用下马蹄形断面隧 道动力响应特性分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3635-3644.
[13] 郑耀林, 章荣军, 郑俊杰, 董超强, 陆展, . 絮凝-固化联合处理超高含水率 吹填淤泥浆的试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3107-3114.
[14] 张治国, 黄茂松, 杨 轩, . 基于衬砌长期渗漏水影响的隧道施工扰动 诱发超孔隙水压消散及地层固结沉降解[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3135-3144.
[15] 蔡雨, 徐林荣, 周德泉, 邓超, 冯晨曦, . 自平衡与传统静载试桩法模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(8): 3011-3018.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 李英勇,张顶立,张宏博,宋修广. 边坡加固中预应力锚索失效机制与失效效应研究[J]. , 2010, 31(1): 144 -150 .
[2] 李秀珍,王成华,邓宏艳. DDA法和Fisher判别法在潜在滑坡判识中的应用比较[J]. , 2011, 32(1): 186 -192 .
[3] 孔祥兴,夏才初,仇玉良,张丽英,龚建伍. 平行小净距盾构与CRD法黄土地铁隧道施工力学研究[J]. , 2011, 32(2): 516 -524 .
[4] 王振红,朱岳明,武圈怀,张宇惠. 混凝土热学参数试验与反分析研究[J]. , 2009, 30(6): 1821 -1825 .
[5] 江学良 ,杨 慧 ,曹 平. 基于SURPAC模型的采空区与露采边坡相互影响的FLAC3D分析[J]. , 2011, 32(4): 1234 -1240 .
[6] 吉武军. 黄土隧道工程问题调查分析[J]. , 2009, 30(S2): 387 -390 .
[7] 陈力华 ,林 志 ,李星平. 公路隧道中系统锚杆的功效研究[J]. , 2011, 32(6): 1843 -1848 .
[8] 陈立文,孙德安. 不同应力路径下水土耦合超固结黏土分叉分析[J]. , 2011, 32(10): 2922 -2928 .
[9] 郑 刚 张立明 刁 钰. 开挖条件下坑底工程桩工作性状及沉降计算分析[J]. , 2011, 32(10): 3089 -3096 .
[10] 马 刚 ,常晓林 ,周 伟 ,周创兵 . 基于Cosserat理论的重力坝深层抗滑稳定分析[J]. , 2012, 33(5): 1505 -1512 .