岩土力学 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 1502-1509.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2019.1271

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

絮凝-水平真空两段式脱水法处理高 含水率疏浚淤泥模型试验研究

蒲诃夫1,潘友富1,KHOTEJA Dibangar1,周洋2   

  1. 1. 华中科技大学 土木工程与力学学院,湖北 武汉 430074; 2. 河南工业大学 土木工程学院,河南 郑州 450001
  • 收稿日期:2019-07-22 修回日期:2019-10-06 出版日期:2020-05-11 发布日期:2020-07-07
  • 通讯作者: 周洋,男,1988年生,博士,助理研究员,主要从事吹填土处理和真空预压等方面的研究工作。E-mail: robertzhouy@163.com E-mail: puh@hust.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:蒲诃夫,男,1985年生,博士,教授,主要从事环境岩土、岩土工程等领域的研究工作
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(No. 51678268, No. 51878312, No. 51908235);全国博士后科学基金资助面上项目(No. 2018M632863)。

Model test on dewatering of high-water-content dredged slurry by flocculation-horizontal vacuum two-staged method

PU He-fu1, PAN You-fu1, KHOTEJA Dibangar1, ZHOU Yang2   

  1. 1. School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, 430074, China; 2. College of Civil Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, Henan 450001, China
  • Received:2019-07-22 Revised:2019-10-06 Online:2020-05-11 Published:2020-07-07
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51678268, 51878312, 51908235) and the Post-Doctoral Science Foundation of China (2018M632863).

摘要: 针对目前预制竖向排水板(PVD)真空预压法处理疏浚淤泥(软土)时存在的板材弯折和淤堵严重的问题,提出了一种絮凝沉积-水平真空两段式脱水法处理高含水率疏浚淤泥。首先,开展PVD和水平排水板(PHD)对比模型试验,表明PHD相对于PVD具有板材变形小、脱水速率均匀、长期脱水效果好等优点。就研究案例而言,PVD的最终排水量仅为PHD的77.4%。然后,研究了絮凝剂(阴离子型聚丙烯酰胺即APAM)对絮凝沉积-水平真空两段式脱水法排水性能的影响,研究显示絮凝剂的添加可以大幅提高疏浚淤泥的脱水效率。絮凝剂主要通过沉积脱水降低含水率以及絮凝簇团作用改善土体的不均匀固结问题两个方面来整体提高脱水效率;相较于没有添加絮凝剂的试验组,适量添加絮凝剂(0.45%干土质量)可缩短35%的脱水时间。最后,分析了静置沉积时长(即真空介入时间点)对脱水速率的影响。结果表明真空介入过早不利于絮凝剂发挥最大脱水效果且易带来明显的不均匀固结问题,最佳介入时间为静置沉积24 h后。

关键词: 水平排水板, 真空预压, 絮凝, 模型试验

Abstract: A two-stage method for dewatering high-water-content dredged slurry by flocculation and vacuum-assisted prefabricated horizontal drain (PHD) was proposed to increase the dewatering efficiency by addressing the issues of serious bending and clogging that are typically encountered when using the prefabricated vertical drain (PVD). Firstly, comparison of model tests using PVD and PHD, respectively, under vacuum preloading indicates that the PHD has advantages of uniform settlement of soil, negligible bending of the drain board, uniform dewatering rate and better dewatering efficacy. For the cases considered in this study, the mass of water drained out by PVD was only 77.4% of that by PHD. Effect of flocculation on the dewatering efficacy was investigated and the results indicated that impact of the flocculant (APAM) dosage on the dewatering rate was significant. With moderate addition of APAM (e.g., 0.45% of dry soil mass), the time required for dewatering was shortened by 35%. Lastly, the influence of sedimentation time (i.e., waiting time before applying vacuum pressure) on dewatering rate was studied. The results showed that if the sedimentation time is insufficient, the effect of flocculation cannot be mobilized fully , and as a result, will lead to significant non-uniform consolidation and reduced dewatering efficacy. The best time to start the vacuum pressure is 24 hours after the beginning of sedimentation.

Key words: prefabricated horizontal drains, vacuum preloading, flocculation, model test

中图分类号: TU 411
[1] 吴倩婵, 章荣军, 徐志豪, 杨钊, 郑俊杰, . 絮凝剂对固化流泥强度行为及变形特性的影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 205-216.
[2] 来志强, 白盛元, 陈林, 邹维列, 徐书岭, 赵连军, . 环式管袋堆场蓄淤脱水特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2805-2815.
[3] 黄大维, 卢文剑, 罗文俊, 余珏, . 盾构隧道同步注浆对砂土地层竖向位移与周围土压力影响试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(9): 2837-2846.
[4] 宋伟涛, 张佩, 杜修力, 林庆涛, . 土性对浅埋盾构隧道施工地层响应影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2179-2188.
[5] 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.
[6] 梁庆国, 李景, 张崇辉, 刘彤彤, 孙志涛, . 基底均匀膨胀作用下黄土−泥岩复合地层隧道衬砌力学响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1811-1824.
[7] 杨柏, 覃超, 张银海, 王威, 肖世国, . 下伏溶洞的高嵌岩比基桩承载特性模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(6): 1839-1850.
[8] 刘红帅, 杨健生, 宋东松, 孙强强, . 近场脉冲和非脉冲地震动作用下干砂场地响应的离心振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1429-1441.
[9] 石湛, 章铁军, 李美香, 陶司记, 伯音, 李云波, . 泥水平衡盾构仓内水平冻结温度场的模型试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1534-1544.
[10] 柴红涛, 文松霖, . 组合荷载作用下桩基承载力屈服包络线特性离心模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1556-1562.
[11] 任一青, 陈保国, 任国卿, 杨振忠, 徐方. 涵顶-涵侧减载条件下高填方箱涵施工期受力特性[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1153-1162.
[12] 杨少朋, 杨爱武, 许福军, . 改性纤维排水板真空预压加固吹填软土试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(3): 789-797.
[13] 裴媛媛, 龙建辉, 郭师苡, 安成纪, 翁杭雨, 张吉宁, . 不同荷载作用下折角式加筋土挡墙应力-应变特征模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 539-550.
[14] 吴学震, 夏亚歆, 李大勇, 游先辉, 单宁康, 肖贞科, 陈祥, . 新型劲性水泥土组合桩内界面抗剪强度试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 467-478.
[15] 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.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!