兰州九州重塑黄土的抗拉变形破坏机理

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-0240.2017.0094

冰川冻土 ›› 2017, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (4): 842-849.doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0240.2017.0094

兰州九州重塑黄土的抗拉变形破坏机理

吴旭阳^1,2,3, 梁庆国³, 牛富俊¹, 李国玉¹

1. 中国科学院西北生态环境资源研究院冻土工程国家重点实验室, 甘肃兰州 730000;
2. 中国科学院大学, 北京 100049;
3. 兰州交通大学土木工程学院, 甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2016-12-14 修回日期:2017-06-02 出版日期:2017-08-25 发布日期:2017-11-15
通讯作者: 梁庆国,E-mail:lqg_39@163.com E-mail:lqg_39@163.com
作者简介:吴旭阳(1987-),男,河南许昌人,2015年在兰州交通大学获硕士学位,现为中国科学院西北生态环境资源研究院在读博士研究生,从事黄土及黄土隧道工程研究.E-mail:879333911@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（41562013）；国家科技支撑计划项目（2014BAG05B05）；甘肃省科技重大专项计划项目（143GKDA007）；兰州交通大学“百名青年优秀人才培养计划”基金资助

Deformation failure mechanism in tensile test on remolded loess from Jiuzhou, Lanzhou

WU Xuyang^1,2,3, LIANG Qingguo³, NIU Fujun¹, LI Guoyu¹

1. State Key Laboratory of Frozen Soil Engineering, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3. School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2016-12-14 Revised:2017-06-02 Online:2017-08-25 Published:2017-11-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过对不同干密度及含水量的重塑黄土进行室内抗拉强度试验，探究轴向压裂法致使试样破坏的机理及一般规律。结果表明，黄土的抗拉变形破坏可分为4种类型：I类，高干密度低含水量（干密度大于1.65 g·cm^-3，含水量小于15%），抗拉强度介于8~12 kPa；Ⅱ类，低干密度低含水量（干密度小于1.60 g·cm^-3，含水量小于15%），抗拉强度介于4~8 kPa；Ⅲ类，高干密度高含水量（干密度大于1.65 g·cm^-3，含水量大于17%），抗拉强度介于4~8 kPa；IV类，低干密度高含水量（干密度小于1.60 g·cm^-3，含水量大于17%），抗拉强度介于3~4 kPa。I类、Ⅱ类破坏类型属于脆性破坏，Ⅲ类、IV类属于塑性破坏。重塑黄土抵抗变形最弱的含水量为15%。通过对比分析黄土、普通黄黏土、红黏土及膨胀土的抗拉强度发现，在最优含水量处，不同干密度下黄土的抗拉强度均最小。黏性土的持水能力远超过黄土。黏土及膨胀土的抗拉强度均在最优含水量处达到最大值，而黄土的抗拉强度随着含水量的增加持续减小。研究结果对黄土强度特性的理解具有一定的参考意义。

关键词: 重塑黄土, 抗拉强度, 机理, 变形破坏

Abstract: The failure characteristics and patterns of loess under unconfined compress were studied on the remolded loess with different dry densities and water contents. The results indicated that the tensile failure of loess can be classified into four types:Type I with high density and low water content (dry density more than 1.65 g·cm^-3 and water content less than 15%), with tensile strength between 8 and 12 kPa; Type Ⅱ with low density and low water content (dry density less than 1.60 g·cm^-3 and water content less than 15%), with tensile strength between 4 and 8 kPa; Type Ⅲ with high density and high water content (dry density more than 1.65 g·cm^-3 and water content more than 17%), with tensile strength between 4 and 8 kPa; Type IV with low density and high water content (dry density less than 1.60 g·cm^-3 and water content more than 17%), with tensile strength between 3 and 4 kPa. Among the four types, Type I and Type Ⅱ had brittle failure, and Type Ⅲ and Type IV had plastic failure. The remolded loess exhibited the weakest resistance to deformation at water content of 15%. Compared with the tensile strengths of yellow clay, red clay and expansive soil under the condition of optimum water content and the same dry density, loess has the minimum tensile strength. In addition, the water holding capacity of clay was much more than that of loess. This research would be helpful to understand strength characteristics of loess.

Key words: remolded loess, tensile strength, mechanism, deformation failure

中图分类号:

P642.11+6

吴旭阳, 梁庆国, 牛富俊, 李国玉. 兰州九州重塑黄土的抗拉变形破坏机理[J]. 冰川冻土, 2017, 39(4): 842-849.

WU Xuyang, LIANG Qingguo, NIU Fujun, LI Guoyu. Deformation failure mechanism in tensile test on remolded loess from Jiuzhou, Lanzhou[J]. JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY AND GEOCRYOLOGY, 2017, 39(4): 842-849.

参考文献

[1] Xing Yichuan, Luo Yasheng, Li Zhen. The rupture failure strength of loess[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 1999(4):36-44.[邢义川, 骆亚生, 李振. 黄土的断裂破坏强度[J]. 水力发电学报, 1999(4):36-44.]
[2] Dang Jinqian, Hao Yueqing, Li Jing. Study on tensile strength of unsaturated loess[J]. Journal of Hohai University, 2001, 29(6):106-108.[党进谦, 郝月清, 李靖. 非饱和黄土抗拉强度的研究[J]. 河海大学学报, 2001, 29(6):106-108.]
[3] Dang Jinqian, Li Jing, Zhang Boping. Uniaxial tension crack characteristics of loess[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2001(4):44-48.[党进谦, 李靖, 张伯平. 黄土单轴拉裂特性的研究[J]. 水力发电学报, 2001(4):44-48.]
[4] Sun Ping, Peng Jianbing, Chen Liwei. Experimental research on tensile fracture characteristics of loess[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009, 31(6):169-173.[孙萍, 彭建兵, 陈立伟. 黄土拉张破裂特性试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2009, 31(6):169-173.]
[5] Sun Ping, Peng Jianbing, Yin Yueping, et al. Tensile test and simulation analysis of fracture process of loess[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2010, 31(2):633-637.[孙萍, 彭建兵, 殷跃平, 等. 黄土拉伸试验及其破裂过程仿真分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2010, 31(2):633-637.]
[6] Chen Xi, Luo Yasheng, Cheng Dawei. Research on the loss in structure of undisturbed loess[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2013, 46(5):137-143.[陈茜, 骆亚生, 程大伟. 原状黄土结构损失研究[J]. 土木工程学报, 2013, 46(5):137-143.]
[7] Wu Xuyang, Liang Qingguo, Li Chunqing, et al. Study on tensile properties of remolded loess in Jiuzhou development district, Lanzhou, China[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2014, 36(3):562-568.[吴旭阳, 梁庆国, 李春清, 等. 兰州九州重塑黄土抗拉特性研究[J]. 地震工程学报, 2014, 36(3):562-568.]
[8] Wu Xuyang, Liang Qingguo, Li Chunqing, et al. Exploration of the combined influence factors of the loess tensile strength[J]. Engineering Geology, 2014, 22(Suppl 1):383-389.[吴旭阳, 梁庆国, 李春清, 等. 黄土抗拉强度的综合影响因素探究[J]. 工程地质学报, 2014, 22(增刊1):383-389.]
[9] Li Chunqing, Liang Qingguo, Wu Xuyang, et al. Study on the test of tensile strength of remolded loess[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2014, 36(2):233-238.[李春清, 梁庆国, 吴旭阳, 等. 重塑黄土抗拉强度试验研究[J]. 地震工程学报, 2014, 36(2):233-238.]
[10] Sun Weiyu, Liang Qingguo, Ou Erfeng, et al. Comparative experimental study on tensile strength of undisturbed and remolded Q₂ loess from Yan'an, Shaanxi, China[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2015, 48(Suppl 2):53-58.[孙纬宇, 梁庆国, 欧尔峰, 等. 陕西延安原状与重塑黄土抗拉强度对比试验研究[J]. 土木工程学报, 2015, 48(增刊2):53-58.]
[11] Liang Qingguo, Wu Xuyang, Li Chunqing, et al. Mechanical analysis using the unconfined penetration test on the tensile strength of Q₃ loess around Lanzhou City, China[J]. Engineering Geology, 2014, 183:324-329.
[12] Kim Tae-Hyung, Kim Tae-Hoon, Kang Gi-Chun, et al. Factors influencing crack-induced tensile strength of compacted soil[J]. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2012, 24(3):315-320.
[13] Fang Hsai-Yang, Daniels J L. Introductory geotechnical engineering[M]. London, UK:Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[14] Zhu Anlong. Tension test and numerical analysis on cohesive clay[D]. Chengdu:Sichuan University, 2005.[朱安龙. 粘性土抗拉强度试验研究及数值模拟[D]. 成都:四川大学, 2005.]
[15] Lü Haibo, Zeng Zhaotian, Ge Ruodong, et al. Experimental study of tensile strength of swell-shrink soils[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2013, 34(3):615-620.[吕海波, 曾召田, 葛若东, 等. 胀缩性土抗拉强度试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2013, 34(3):615-620.]
[16] Wu Xuyang, Liang Qingguo, Niu Fujun, et al. Anisotropy of intact loess of Wangjiagou tunnel along Baoji-Lanzhou passenger dedicated line[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2016, 37(8):2373-2382.[吴旭阳, 梁庆国, 牛富俊, 等. 宝兰客运专线王家沟隧道原状黄土各向异性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2016, 37(8):2373-2382.]
[17] Li Xiaohong, Zhang Hua, Meng Yue. The study of changing the characteristics of expansive soil by soil improvement[J]. Henan Water Resources & South-to-North Water Diversion, 2016(11):84-85.[李晓红, 张华, 孟玥. 土质改良法改性膨胀土试验研究[J]. 河南水利与南水北调, 2016(11):84-85.]
[18] Standard for soil test method:GB/T 50123-1999[S]. Beijing:China Planning Press, 1999.[土工试验方法标准:GB/T 50123-1999[S]. 北京:中国计划出版社, 1999.]
[19] Wang Fei, Li Guoyu, Mu Yanhu, et al. Study on collapse characteristic of compacted loess subjected to cyclic drying and wetting[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2016, 38(2):416-423.[王飞, 李国玉, 穆彦虎, 等. 干湿循环作用下压实黄土湿陷特性试验研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2016, 38(2):416-423.]
[20] Zhang Ying, Bing Hui. Experimental study of the effect of freezing-thawing cycles on porosity characters of silty clay by using mercury intrusion porosimetry[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2015, 37(1):169-174.[张英, 邴慧. 基于压汞法的冻融循环对土体孔隙特征影响的试验研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2015, 37(1):169-174.]

兰州九州重塑黄土的抗拉变形破坏机理

Deformation failure mechanism in tensile test on remolded loess from Jiuzhou, Lanzhou

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	梁鹏斌, 李忠勤, 张慧, 王飞腾, 牟建新, 何海迪. 1984-2016年全球参照冰川物质平衡时空变化特征[J]. 冰川冻土, 2018, 40(3): 415-425.
[2]	王璞玉, 李忠勤, 李慧林, 李开明, 徐春海. 天山冰川储量变化和面积变化关系分析研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2017, 39(1): 9-15.
[3]	黄星, 李东庆, 明锋, 邴慧, 彭万巍. 冻土的单轴抗压、抗拉强度特性试验研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2016, 38(5): 1346-1352.
[4]	王冲, 赖远明, 尤哲敏, 杨勇, 余东合, 刘国华. 温度和含水状态对岩石劈裂强度影响的试验研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2016, 38(5): 1317-1324.
[5]	张浩, 折学森, 鲁中举. 公路涎流冰的成冰机理与新型防治措施研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2015, 37(6): 1571-1578.
[6]	张钰, 陶嗣廉, 石婕, 马德禛, 刘国华. 渭河流域上游枯水径流特征与机理分析[J]. 冰川冻土, 2015, 37(3): 757-766.
[7]	马历权. 公路填方路堤纵向开裂机理的理论分析[J]. 冰川冻土, 2011, 33(4): 855-858.
[8]	裴建中, 窦明健, 胡长顺, 王秉纲. 多年冻土地区路基纵向裂缝形成机理研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2006, 28(1): 116-121.
[9]	赖远明, 张明义, 喻文兵, 高志华. 边界条件对碎石层降温效果及机理的影响[J]. 冰川冻土, 2005, 27(2): 163-168.
[10]	赖远明, 张明义, 喻文兵, 高志华. 封闭条件下抛石路堤降温效果及机理的试验研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2004, 26(5): 576-581.
[11]	任建喜, 罗英, 刘文刚, 李新虎. CT检测技术在岩石加卸载破坏机理研究中的应用[J]. 冰川冻土, 2002, 24(5): 672-675.
[12]	可素娟, 张学成, 王玉明. 封河预报数学模型研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2001, 23(3): 328-332.
[13]	孙广友. 试论沼泽与冻土的共生机理——以中国大小兴安岭地区为例[J]. 冰川冻土, 2000, 22(4): 309-316.
[14]	马巍, 吴紫汪, 张立新, 常小晓 . 高围压下冻土强度弱化的机理分析[J]. 冰川冻土, 1999, 21(1): 27-32.
[15]	沈忠言, 彭万巍, 刘永智. 冻结黄土抗拉强度的试验研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 1995, 17(4): 315-321.