长江漫滩相超固结软土最大动剪切模量试验研究

周瑞荣; 李浩; 肖兴; 周逸枫; 吴琪

doi:10.11899/zzfy20240306

长江漫滩相超固结软土最大动剪切模量试验研究

doi: 10.11899/zzfy20240306

周瑞荣^{1, 2,},
李浩³,
肖兴³,
周逸枫³,
吴琪^3, ,

1.
三江学院, 土木工程学院, 南京 210012
2.
江苏省高铁安全工程技术研究开发中心, 南京 211899
3.
南京工业大学, 岩土工程研究所, 南京 211899

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金（52008206）；江苏省高铁安全工程技术研究开发中心开放基金（AQ202213）；南京市建设系统科技计划（KZ2021004）

详细信息

作者简介:
周瑞荣，男，生于1983年。硕士，高级实验师。主要从事土的基本力学特性研究。E-mail：zrr049@163.com

通讯作者:
吴琪，男，生于1991年。博士，副教授，硕士生导师。主要从事海洋岩土动力特性研究。E-mail：qw09061801@163.com

计量
- 文章访问数: 10
- HTML全文浏览量: 2
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-02-13
- 网络出版日期: 2024-10-15
- 刊出日期: 2024-09-01

Experimental Study on Maximum Dynamic Shear Modulus of Yangtze River Floodplain Overconsolidated Soft Soil

Zhou Ruirong^{1, 2
,},
Li Hao³,
Xiao Xing³,
Zhou Yifeng³,
Wu Qi^{3
, ,}

1.
College of Civil Engineering, San Jiang University, Nanjing 210012, China
2.
Jiangsu High-Speed Rail Safety Engineering Technology Research Center, Nanjing 211899, China
3.
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211899, China

摘要

摘要: 为探究长江漫滩相超固结软土最大动剪切模量G_max变化特征，利用弯曲元对原状长江漫滩相软土开展了系列试验研究，探讨了不同超固结比H_OCR、初始有效固结围压σ' _3c及孔隙比e对漫滩相软土G_max的影响规律。试验结果表明，当σ' _3c和H_OCR均相同时，G_max随e的增大而减小；H_OCR的增大会导致G_max随e的衰减速度逐渐降低，而σ' _3c的增大不会引起G_max衰减速度的变化。孔隙归准化最大剪切模量G_max/F(e)随归准化初始有效围压σ' _c0/P_a的增大而增加，但其增长速率逐渐降低，G_max/F(e)与σ' _3c/P_a呈幂函数关系。基于回归分析，提出了合理表征具有不同超固结状态、初始应力条件及密实程度的长江漫滩相软土G_max预测方法，并通过独立试验验证了该方法的有效性。
- 漫滩相软土 /
- 最大剪切模量 /
- 超固结比 /
- 初始有效固结围压 /
- 孔隙比
Abstract: To investigate the maximum dynamic shear modulus (G_max) of overconsolidated soft soil from the Yangtze River floodplain, a series of bender element tests were conducted. These tests explored the effects of the overconsolidation ratio (H_OCR), initial effective confining pressure (σ' _3c), and void ratio (e) on G_max. The results show that G_max decreases as the void ratio (e) increases, given constant values of σ' _3c and H_OCR. Furthermore, increasing the H_OCR reduces the decay rate of G_max, while this decay rate remains relatively insensitive to changes in σ' _3c. The void ratio-normalized maximum shear modulus, G_max/F(e), was found to increase with rising stress-normalized initial effective confining pressure (σ' _3c/P_a). However, the rate of increase exhibited a declining trend. Notably, G_max/F(e) follows a unique power-law relationship with σ' _3c/P_a, indicating a consistent pattern across different stress conditions. Through regression analysis, a predictive method for estimating G_max in Yangtze River floodplain soft soils with varying overconsolidation states, initial stress conditions, and degrees of compaction has been developed. The accuracy and reliability of this method have been verified through independent experimental testing, confirming its effectiveness in characterizing the dynamic shear properties of soft soils in this region.
- Floodplain soft soil /
- Maximum dynamic shear modulus /
- Overconsolidated ratio /
- Initial effective confining pressure /
- Void ratio

HTML全文

图 1 原状长江漫滩相软土

Figure 1. Undisturbed Yangtze River floodplain facies soft soil

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 原状长江漫滩相软土微观结构

Figure 2. Microstructure of undisturbed Yangtze River floodplain facies soft soil

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 典型的弯曲元试验接收信号

Figure 3. Typical time histories of output signals from bender element tests

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 G_max与e关系曲线

Figure 4. The relationship between G_max and e

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 不同H_OCR条件下d与σ' _3c关系曲线

Figure 5. The relationship between d and σ' _3c with different H_OCR

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 G_max/F（e）与σ' _3c/P_a关系曲线

Figure 6. The relationship between G_max/F（e） and σ' _3c/P_a

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 参数d、A、n与H_OCR的关系曲线

Figure 7. The relationship between parameter d，A，n and H_OCR

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 G_max预测值与试验值对比

Figure 8. Comparison of G_max predicted values and test values

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 试验土样及基本物理性质

Table 1. Basic physical properties of test soil samples

编号	H/m	ρ/(g·cm⁻³)	w/%	e	I_p/%	σ' _3c/kPa	H_OCR	编号	H/m	ρ/(g·cm⁻³)	w/%	e	I_p/%	σ' _3c/kPa	H_OCR
A1	8.7～8.9	1.39	39.32	0.95	16.3	50	1	C1	15.4～15.6	1.40	42.41	0.95	17.1	120	1
A2	6.8～7.0	1.27	40.11	1.1	17.2	50	1	C2	17.1～17.3	1.31	38.42	1.04	16.2	120	1
A3	6.3～6.5	1.31	41.08	1.04	17.4	50	1	C3	16.1～16.3	1.29	41.38	1.08	16.3	120	1
A4	8.3～8.5	1.27	40.14	1.13	16.9	50	1	C4	15.3～15.5	1.27	39.33	1.13	17.8	120	1
A5	8.2～8.4	1.33	38.81	1.03	16.8	50	2	C5	16.2～16.4	1.27	38.31	1.15	16.3	120	1
A6	7.7～7.9	1.29	42.61	1.08	16.8	50	2	C6	15.7～15.9	1.32	39.87	1.03	16.9	120	2
A7	9.2～9.4	1.26	41.43	1.12	17.4	50	2	C7	15.1～15.3	1.29	40.24	1.08	17.1	120	2
A8	7.4～7.7	1.26	40.43	1.15	17	50	2	C8	15.8～16.0	1.28	36.93	1.11	15.4	120	2
A9	7.3～7.5	1.30	39.55	1.09	17.5	50	3	C9	16.5～16.7	1.25	41.66	1.13	17.2	120	2
A10	8.3～8.5	1.33	40.84	1.03	17.2	50	3	C10	16.3～16.5	1.32	37.17	1.03	15.9	120	3
A11	7.8～8.0	1.26	41.45	1.13	17.3	50	3	C11	15.2～15.4	1.30	39.24	1.08	14.8	120	3
A12	5.4～5.6	1.39	42.94	0.96	16.8	50	3	C12	15.6～15.8	1.28	40.92	1.12	17.5	120	3
B1	13.7～13.9	1.36	40.06	0.97	17.4	85	1	C13	15.7～15.9	1.26	39.82	1.14	16.4	120	3
B2	14.5～14.7	1.33	39.91	1.04	16.3	85	1	D1	21.1～21.3	1.35	41.43	0.99	17.5	150	1
B3	14.5～14.7	1.29	40.5	1.09	17.6	85	1	D2	22.3～22.5	1.33	40.92	1.05	16.5	150	1
B4	12.5～12.7	1.25	40.26	1.14	16.5	85	1	D3	23.1～23.3	1.28	41.59	1.11	17.1	150	1
B5	14.1～14.3	1.26	39.59	1.16	16.9	85	1	D4	23.8～24.0	1.26	40.92	1.15	17.5	150	1
B6	14.3～14.5	1.34	40.42	1.01	16.5	85	2	D5	21.6～21.8	1.23	41.66	1.18	17	150	2
B7	13.1～13.3	1.30	40.14	1.08	16.7	85	2	D6	22.5～22.7	1.27	39.45	1.11	17.1	150	2
B8	14.8～15.0	1.31	41.05	1.09	17	85	2	D7	23.3～23.5	1.30	41.11	1.05	17.3	150	2
B9	14.7～14.9	1.25	41.27	1.14	17.2	85	2	D8	23.8～24.0	1.38	38.23	0.98	16.4	150	2
B10	13.8～14.0	1.19	40.6	1.26	16.7	85	2	D9	21.9～22.1	1.37	39.83	0.95	16.6	150	3
B11	14.5～14.7	1.35	38.87	1.02	15.1	85	3	D10	22.9～23.1	1.33	40.14	1.03	17.8	150	3
B12	13.1～13.3	1.30	38.43	1.09	17.2	85	3	D11	23.4～23.6	1.28	39.82	1.10	17.1	150	3
B13	13.5～13.7	1.27	40.21	1.12	16.7	85	3	D12	24.6～24.8	1.25	38.92	1.16	17.4	150	3
B14	14.9～15.1	1.24	41.7	1.14	16.9	85	3

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 独立验证试验工况

Table 2. Basic physical properties of test soil samples

编号	H/m	ρ/(g·cm⁻³)	w/%	e	I_p/%	σ' _3c/kPa	H_OCR	G_max
E1	8.7～8.9	1.35	40.32	0.96	16.3	50	1.5	21.65
E2	7.7～7.9	1.26	39.11	1.13	17.2	50	2.5	37.64
E3	12.3～12.5	1.30	42.08	1.05	17.4	85	1.5	32.37
E4	13.3～13.5	1.28	39.14	1.12	16.9	85	2.5	40.63
E5	15.2～15.4	1.32	40.81	1.04	16.8	120	1.5	43.39
E6	15.7～15.9	1.28	43.61	1.05	16.8	120	2.5	45.34

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(26)

柏立懂,项伟,Savidis A. S. 等,2012. 干砂最大剪切模量的共振柱与弯曲元试验. 岩土工程学报,34(1):184−188.

Bai L. D., Xiang W., Savidis A. S., et al., 2012. Dynamic shear modulus of partly saturated cohesionless soils. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 34(1): 184−188. (in Chinese)

蔡袁强,王军,徐长节,2007. 初始偏应力作用对萧山软黏土动弹模量与阻尼影响试验研究. 岩土力学,28(11):2291−2296,2302. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2007.11.008

Cai Y. Q., Wang J., Xu C. J., 2007. Experimental study on dynamic elastic modulus and damping ratio of Xiaoshan saturated soft clay considering initial deviator stress. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 28(11): 2291−2296,2302. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2007.11.008

陈国兴,谢君斐,张克绪,1995. 土的动模量和阻尼比的经验估计. 地震工程与工程振动,15(1):73−84.

Chen G. X., Xie J. F., Zhang K. X., 1995. The empirical evaluation of soil moduli and damping ratio for dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15(1): 73−84. (in Chinese)

陈妍,2019. 基于CPTU测试的南京长江漫滩相软土地区深基坑设计参数评价及变形控制研究. 南京:东南大学.

Chen Y., 2019. Study on design parameters and deformation control of deep foundation pit in soft soil area of Nanjing flood land based on CPTU data. Nanjing:Southeast University. (in Chinese)

陈云敏,周燕国,黄博,2006. 利用弯曲元测试砂土剪切模量的国际平行试验. 岩土工程学报,28(7):874−880. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2006.07.013

Chen Y. M., Zhou Y. G., Huang B., 2006. International parallel test on the measurement of shear modulus of sand using bender elements. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 28(7): 874−880. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2006.07.013

侯晓亮,赵晓豹,李晓昭等,2011. 南京河西地区软土地层特征及工程特性研究. 地质论评,57(4):600−608.

Hou X. L., Zhao X. B., Li X. Z., et al., 2011. Research on engineering properties of floodplain soft soil in Hexi area, Nanjing. Geological Review, 57(4): 600−608. (in Chinese)

黄广龙,卫敏,韩爱民等,2006. 南京长江漫滩地层中地铁结构的沉降分析. 水文地质工程地质,33(3):112−116. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3665.2006.03.028

Huang G. L., Wei M., Han A. M., et al., 2006. Analysis on the subsidence of tunnel foundation in Nanjing Yangtze River valley flat. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 33(3): 112−116. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3665.2006.03.028

孔令伟,臧濛,郭爱国,2017. 湛江黏土动剪切模量的结构损伤效应与定量表征. 岩土工程学报,39(12):2149−2157.

Kong L. W., Zang M., Guo A. G., 2017. Structural damage effect on dynamic shear modulus of Zhanjiang clay and quantitative characterization. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 39(12): 2149−2157. (in Chinese)

刘维正,石名磊,2010. 长江漫滩相软土结构性特征及其工程效应分析. 岩土力学,31(2):427−432.

Liu W. Z., Shi M. L., 2010. Structural characteristic and engineering effect analysis of Yangtze River backswamp soft soil. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31(2): 427−432. (in Chinese)

刘晓燕,蔡国军,邹海峰等,2019. 基于CPTU数据融合技术的黏性土应力历史与强度特性评价研究. 岩土工程学报,41(7):1270−1278.

Liu X. Y., Cai G. J., Zou H. F., et al., 2019. Prediction of stress history and strength of cohesive soils based on CPTU and data fusion techniques. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 41(7): 1270−1278. (in Chinese)

孙静,袁晓铭,2010. 固结比对黏性土动剪切模量影响的研究. 岩土力学,31(5):1457−1462,1468. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2010.05.018

Sun J., Yuan X. M., 2010. Effect of consolidation ratio of cohesive soils on dynamic shear modulus. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31(5): 1457−1462,1468. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2010.05.018

杨文保,吴琪,陈国兴,2019. 长江入海口原状土动剪切模量预测方法探究. 岩土力学,40(10):3889−3896.

Yang W. B., Wu Q., Chen G. X., 2019. Dynamic shear modulus prediction method of undisturbed soil in the estuary of the Yangtze River. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 40(10): 3889−3896. (in Chinese)

章晓余,康涛,薛斌,2010. 南京浦口长江漫滩区地震效应评价. 土工基础,24(3):65−68. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3152.2010.03.022

Zhang X. Y., Kang T., Xie B., 2010. Seismic effect evaluation on the flood plain of Changjiang River in Pukou, Nanjing. Soil Engineering and Foundation, 24(3): 65−68. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3152.2010.03.022

Brignoli E. G. M. , Gotti M. , Stokoe K. H. II. , 1996. Measurement of shear waves in laboratory specimens by means of piezoelectric transducers, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 19 (4): 384-397.

Chen G. X., Zhao D. F., Chen W. Y., et al., 2019. Excess pore-water pressure generation in cyclic undrained testing. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145(7): 04019022. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002057

Hardin B. O., Black W. L., 1968. Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 94(2): 353−369. doi: 10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001100

Hoyos L. R., Puppala A. J., Chainuwat P., 2004. Dynamic properties of chemically stabilized sulfate rich clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(2): 153−162. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:2(153)

Jamiolkowski M., Lancellotta R., Lo Presti D. C. F., 1995. Remarks on the stiffness at small strains of six Italian clays. Inpre-failure Deformation of Geomaterials. Proceedings of the Pre-Failure Deformation of Geomaterials, 12-14(2): 153−162.

Kim T. C., Novak M., 1981. Dynamic properties of some cohesive soils of Ontario. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18(3): 371−389. doi: 10.1139/t81-044

Kokusho T., Yoshida Y., Esashi Y., 1982. Dynamic properties of soft clay for wide strain range. Soils and Foundations, 22(4): 1−18. doi: 10.3208/sandf1972.22.4_1

Lee J. S., Santamarina J. C., 2005. Bender element, performance and signal interpretation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(9): 1063−1070. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:9(1063)

Santagata M., Germaine J. T., Ladd C. C., 2005. Factors affecting the initial stiffness of cohesive soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(4): 430−441. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(430)

Vucetic M., Dobry R., 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(1): 89−107. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)

Wu Q., Lu Q. R., Guo Q. Z., et al., 2020. Experimental investigation on small-strain stiffness of marine silty sand. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(5): 360. doi: 10.3390/jmse8050360

Wu Q., Liu Q. F., Zhuang H. Y., et al., 2022. Experimental investigation of dynamic shear modulus of saturated marine coral sand. Ocean Engineering, 264: 112412. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112412

Yang J., Gu X. Q., 2013. Shear stiffness of granular material at small strains: does it depend on grain size?. Géotechnique, 63(2): 165−179.

施引文献

资源附件(0)

访问统计