岩土力学 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 909-920.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2020.0993

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

钙质粉土的固结特性试验研究

雷学文1,丁豪1, 2,王新志2,沈建华2,孟庆山2   

  1. 1. 武汉科技大学 城市建设学院,湖北 武汉 430065;2. 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,湖北 武汉 430071
  • 收稿日期:2020-07-14 修回日期:2020-10-15 出版日期:2021-04-12 发布日期:2021-04-25
  • 通讯作者: 王新志,男,1981年生,博士,研究员,主要从事珊瑚礁工程地质及岩土力学特性的研究。E-mail: xzwang@whrsm.ac.cn E-mail:leixuewen@wust.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:雷学文,男,1962年生,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事岩土力学与岩土工程方面的教学与科研工作
  • 基金资助:
    中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(A类)资助(No. XDA13010203);自然科学基金面上项目(No. 41572297,No. 41772336,No. 41877267)

Experimental study of consolidation properties of calcareous silt

LEI Xue-wen1, DING Hao1, 2, WANG Xin-zhi2, SHEN Jian-hua2, MENG Qing-shan2   

  1. 1. School of Urban Constriction, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430065, China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Mechanics and Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Geotechnical Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China
  • Received:2020-07-14 Revised:2020-10-15 Online:2021-04-12 Published:2021-04-25
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA13010203) and the General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (41572297, 41772336, 41877267).

摘要: 由于水力吹填的分选作用,南海吹填珊瑚礁地基中含有厚度不均的细颗粒钙质粉土夹层。相比粗颗粒礁砂而言,钙质粉土的压缩性高、承载力低、沉降变形大,对建筑物安全造成不利影响。通过室内固结试验,查明了钙质粉土的压缩特性,揭示了钙质粉土的主固结沉降量、次固结沉降量、固结时间和固结速率特征,为更好地了解钙质粉土的工程性质和珊瑚礁地基沉降计算提供科学依据。试验结果表明:钙质粉土压缩系数在0.03~0.37 MPa?1之间,压缩模量在6.67~54.79 MPa之间;压缩系数与含水率成正比,与干密度成反比。其中,含水率小于15%的中密和密实钙质粉土的压缩系数小于0.1 MPa?1,压缩模量大于20.0 MPa,属于低压缩性土;松散的钙质粉土均属于中压缩性土。与相同干密度和含水率的石英砂相比,石英砂的压缩系数比钙质粉土大,即钙质粉土比石英砂压缩性更低;与相同干密度和含水率的杭州湾粉土相比,两者均属于中压缩性土,但钙质粉土的压缩模量比杭州湾粉土略大,压缩系数略小;当荷载大于200 kPa时,钙质粉土在固结试验前5 h固结度达到了0.95,因此,建议钙质粉土的固结试验在荷载小于200 kPa时固结时间仍取24 h,当荷载大于200 kPa时取5 h,此举将大大节省测试时间,提高测试效率。

关键词: 钙质粉土, 干密度, 含水率, 压缩性指标, 固结速率

Abstract: Due to the effect of sorting by hydraulic dredger fill, the foundation of dredged coral reef in the South China Sea contains fine calcareous silt interlayer with uneven thickness. Compared with coarse-grained calcareous sand, calcareous silt presents higher compressibility, lower bearing capacity and larger settlement deformation, which adversely affect the safety of buildings on coral reefs. In this paper, the characteristics of primary and secondary consolidation settlement, consolidation time and consolidation rate of calcareous silt were obtained through laboratory consolidation tests, for better understanding the engineering properties of calcareous silt and calculation of coral reef foundation settlement. The calcareous silt shows 0.03?0.37 MPa?1 of the compression coefficient and 6.67?54.79 MPa of the compression modulus. Compression coefficient is directly proportional to moisture content and inversely proportional to dry density. Compression coefficient lower than 0.1 MPa?1 and compression modulus more than 20.0 MPa occurs in moderately dense and dense calcareous silt with water content of less than 15% as low compressibility soil, but loose calcareous silt is moderately compressible. Compared with quartz sand under the same dry densities and moisture contents, the compression coefficient of quartz sand is higher than that of calcareous silt, while the compression modulus is lower than that of calcareous silt. Under the same dry density and water content, both Hangzhou Bay silt and calcareous silt show moderate compressibility. However, the compressive modulus of calcareous silt is slightly larger than that of Hangzhou Bay silt, and its compressive coefficient is slightly smaller. When the load exceeds 200 kPa, the degree of consolidation of calcareous silt reaches 0.95 in the first 5 hours of the consolidation test. Therefore, it suggests 24 hours for the consolidation time of calcareous silt under loading less than 200 kPa but 5 hours under loading greater than 200 kPa for the testing efficiency.

Key words: calcareous silt, dry density, moisture content, compressibility index, rate of consolidation

中图分类号: TU 411
[1] 王勇, 顾凯, 张博, 姜霖, 施斌, . 基于分布式温度测试和重建的浅表土体含水率反演[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 531-540.
[2] 江文豪, 王浩, 廖光志, 陈滨华, . 时变降雨场景下双层非饱和土中水分一维瞬态渗流解析解[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2721-2737.
[3] 李新明, 何永飞, 谈云志, 任克彬, 张先伟, 尹松, . 不同含水率下石灰−偏高岭土改良遗址土宏微观特性的冻融循环效应[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2894-2906.
[4] 张海燕, 胡新丽, 刘欣宇, 李亚博. 含水率和剪切速率对黏性滑带土剪切行为及损伤演化的影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2471-2482.
[5] 杨爱武, 程姝晓, 梁振振, 华谦谦, 杨少朋. 高含水率吹填土大变形固结与流变叠加效应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 1977-1987.
[6] 骆祚森, 曹旭, 邓华锋, 杨旺, 李建林, 杨超, . 法向动载对不同含水状态灰岩节理面剪切力学特性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1799-1810.
[7] 姜海波, 卢燕, 李琳, 张军, . 干湿-冻融作用输水渠道膨胀土强度特性及损伤演化规律研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1356-1367.
[8] 杨艳霜, 闫磊, 张占荣, 刘永莉, 崔臻, 彭剑承, 亢兆鹏, . 基于三相孔隙介质模型的地震动传播特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1109-1121.
[9] 罗宣兵, 李清林, 陈文娟, 杨潇飞, 张美雪, . 不同含水率-冻结温度-骆驼刺根系含量下砂土冻融变形规律研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1174-1186.
[10] 许庆钊, 史文豹, 常聚才, 苗壮, 闫澳运, 李传明, 齐潮. 不同加载速率含水煤样力学响应及宏微观破坏机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 881-893.
[11] 元志镕, 蒋水华, 常志璐, 向晖, 刘玉伟, 黄劲松, . 考虑初始含水率非均匀分布及孔隙水重分布的边坡可靠度分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 1001-1012.
[12] 郭旭辉, 朱鸿鹄, 吴冰, 高宇新, 胡乐乐, 曹鼎峰, . 基于人工神经网络的黄土含水率光纤被动感测技术研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 653-664.
[13] 王兵, 胡小波, 孔楠楠. 真空联合电渗加固超细颗粒疏浚土试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3523-3533.
[14] 宋二波, 姚仰平, 牛玺荣, . 基于加速度峰值的填土智能压实质量评价方法研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3054-3064.
[15] 王莘晴, 张晓超, 裴向军, . 弃渣土体分形级配方程及最大干密度预测模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3157-3166.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!