岩土力学 ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (7): 1772-1780.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2021.1766

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

结构性对膨胀土收缩特性影响的试验研究

刘观仕1,赵守道2,牟智3,莫燕坤3,赵青松3   

  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,湖北 武汉 430071; 2. 长安大学 水利与环境学院 陕西 西安 710064;3. 桂林理工大学 广西岩土力学与工程重点实验室,广西 桂林 541004
  • 收稿日期:2021-10-21 修回日期:2022-03-28 出版日期:2022-07-26 发布日期:2022-08-03
  • 作者简介:刘观仕,男,1974年生,博士,副研究员,主要从事膨胀土裂隙与变形等方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划(No. 2019YFC1509901);国家自然科学基金(No. 51279200)

Experimental study of the influence of structure on the shrinkage characteristics of expansive soil

LIU Guan-shi1, ZHAO Shou-dao2, MOU Zhi3, MO Yan-kun3, ZHAO Qing-song3   

  1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China; 2. School of Water and Enviroment, Chang’an University, Xi’ an, Shaanxi 710064, China; 3. Guangxi Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Mechanics and Engineering, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China
  • Received:2021-10-21 Revised:2022-03-28 Online:2022-07-26 Published:2022-08-03
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Key R & D Plan (2019YFC1509901) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51279200).

摘要: 膨胀土的收缩性明显,容易引发边坡与地基开裂,但有关结构性对收缩特性影响的认识甚少。采用收缩自动试验装置,在恒湿恒温条件下对原状膨胀土和重塑膨胀土开展了收缩对比试验和扫描电镜(scanning electron microscope,简称SEM)测试分析,结果表明:与原状土相比,重塑土在土中水流动阶段的蒸发速率较小,蒸汽扩散阶段收缩稳定速率较慢,最终体积收缩应变量更大;重塑土体积收缩−含水率关系曲线的线性段较长,斜率较大,直线段与稳定段之间的过渡不明显,而原状土则反之;重塑土和原状土的收缩特征曲线(soil shrinkage characteristic curves,简称SSC)在较高含水率段基本重合,随着含水率下降,重塑土的SSC下降更快,对应的含水率范围更宽,最后进入残余−零收缩阶段时,孔隙比明显较小;Chertkov收缩模型适用于原状膨胀土,但不适用于重塑膨胀土。SEM测试结果表明,原状膨胀土较重塑膨胀土具有更强的原生结构性,初始密度与湿度相同情况下,两者颗粒排列、接触方式、胶结状态、孔隙大小与分布特征等微观结构上差异明显,导致蒸发过程中重塑土的水分迁移速率较小、基质吸力较大,是重塑土收缩更剧烈的内在原因。研究结果可为膨胀土边坡的坡面工程防护设计提供参考依据。

关键词: 膨胀土, 收缩, 微观结构, 孔隙, 扫描电镜

Abstract: Shrinkage is inherent to expansive soil, usually resulting in slope and foundation cracking, but there is little understanding about the influence of structure on shrinkage characteristics. Using an automatic shrinkage test device, comparison tests on shrinkage and scanning electron microscope (SEM) tests for undisturbed and remolded expansive soil were carried out under the same humidity and constant temperature. The results show that compared with undisturbed soil, remolded soil has smaller evaporation rate in the water flow stage, slower shrinkage stability rate in the vapor evaporation stage and larger volume shrinkage strain in the end. For the remolded soil, the linear section of the curve of volume shrinkage versus water content is longer, the slope larger, and the transition between the linear section and the stable section not obvious, while the undisturbed soil is on the contrary. The soil shrinkage characteristic curves (SSC) of remolded and undisturbed soil basically coincide in the section at higher water content; with the decrease of water content, the SSC of remolded soil decreases faster and the corresponding water content range is wider, and when entering the residual-zero shrinkage stage, the void ratio is obviously smaller. Chertkov shrinkage model is suitable for undisturbed expansive soil, but not for remolded one. SEM test results show that the undisturbed expansive soil has stronger primary structure than remolded expansive soil. Under the same initial density and humidity, there exists obvious differences in microstructure, such as particle arrangement, contact mode, cementation state, pore size and distribution characteristics between the undisturbed and remolded expansive soil, resulting in smaller water migration rate and larger matrix suction of remolded soil during evaporation, which is the internal reason why remolded soil shrinks more violently than undisturbed soil. The research results can provide a reference basis for the design of slope engineering protection for expansive soil slopes.

Key words: expansive soil, shrinkage, microstructure, pore, SEM

中图分类号: TU 475
[1] 郅彬, 魏园钧, 王番, 张茜, 刘存利, 任会明, . 冻融循环作用下含Na2SO4盐原状黄土宏观强度与微观结构关联机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 106-120.
[2] 董林, 陈强, 夏坤, 李彦苍, 李燕, 王晓磊. 细粒土黏性对液化与循环软化特性影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 228-237.
[3] 张兴文, 曹净, 雷舒羽, 李育红, 程芸, 张柠锐, . 富里酸环境对含腐殖酸水泥土结构及渗透性影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 249-261.
[4] 郑晨, 白强强, 黄克起, 刘晓敏, 张强, 何晓佩, 宋立伟, . 黏土中竖井开挖诱发地层三维变形规律研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 335-342.
[5] 刘先珊, 孙梦, 郑志伟, 熊振瑀, 于明智, 曹伊婷, 宋昱霖, 黄子宣, . 复杂孔隙介质两相驱替模式及驱替效率研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2363-2375.
[6] 倪睿思, 肖世国, 吴兵, 梁瑶, . 基于非线性井阻的饱和软弱土无砂增压式真空预压分析方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2160-2172.
[7] 吴婷, 杨志兵, 胡冉, 陈益峰, . 细颗粒运移与孔隙堵塞对两相渗流特性的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1755-1764.
[8] 陈一纬, 董平川, . 饱和各向异性裂缝型岩石中波的频散和衰减[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1934-1942.
[9] 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.
[10] 欧阳淼, 张红日, 王桂尧, 邓人睿, 郭鸥, 汪磊, 高游, . 基于响应面法的生物基质改良膨胀土配比优化研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1368-1378.
[11] 郑舒文, 刘松玉, 李迪, 童立元, 吴恺, . 膨胀土基泡沫轻质土力学性能试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1455-1465.
[12] 杨柳, 吉明秀, 赵艳, 耿振坤, 李思源, 马雄德, 张谦, . 致密砂岩孔隙结构对两相驱替特征及CO2封存效率的影响机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1187-1195.
[13] 唐先习, 张徐军, 李昊杰, . 钢渣-煤矸石地聚合物固化黄土的力学特性评价与固化原理分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1205-1214.
[14] 董建华, 杨博, 田文通, 吴晓磊, 何鹏飞, 赵律华, 连博, . 新型防液化抗滑桩研发与地震响应振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1084-1094.
[15] 常仕奇, 董晓强, 刘晓凤, 李江山, 刘晓勇, 张豪儒, 黄寅豪, . 水位变动引发干法赤泥堆场坝体失稳的模型试验与数值模拟研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1122-1130.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!