|
Material Sciences 2021
不同化学固化粉土的CBR性能对比试验研究
|
Abstract:
为了对比水泥和新型沥青粉末型固化剂下对粉土的固化效果,采用CBR试验对其承载力进行验证,得到以下结论:水泥和沥青粉固化剂都对粉土的最大干密度有显著提升,对粉土的最佳含水率有降低作用;水泥和沥青粉固化剂都对粉土膨胀量有抑制作用;在95%~100%压实度下,粉土的CBR值在10.63%~19.65%,而水泥固化土的CBR值的范围在80.88%~130.1%,沥青粉固化土的CBR值的范围在159.15%~243.9%。沥青粉固化剂在提高粉土击实性能、增加粉土抗变形能力、提高CBR值的效果上优于水泥,是一种性能良好的土壤固化材料。
In order to compare the curing effect of cement and the new asphalt powder stabilizer on the soil, the CBR test was used to verify its bearing capacity, and the following conclusions were obtained: Both cement and asphalt powder stabilizer can significantly improve the maximum dry density of soil, and reduce the optimal moisture content of soil; both cement and asphalt powder stabilizer can inhibit the expansion of soil; Under 95%~100% compaction degree, the CBR value of soil is 10.63%~19.65%, while the CBR value of cement-solidified soil is in the range of 80.88%~130.1%, and the CBR value of asphalt powder-solidified soil is in the range of 159.15%~243.9%. Asphalt powder stabilizer is better than cement in improving compaction performance, deformation re-sistance and CBR value of silt. It is a kind of soil curing material with good performance.
[1] | 姚占勇. 黄河冲淤积平原土的工程特性研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 天津: 天津大学, 2006. |
[2] | 曹学禹, 刘阳. CBR试验在路基工程中的应用[J]. 土工基础, 2020, 34(4): 423-425. |
[3] | 曹培, 王芳, 严丽雪, 顾春媛. 石灰改良黏性土CBR值的试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2011, 33(S1): 305-308. |
[4] | 杨晶, 马富丽, 闫嘉庆, 白晓红. 不同初始状态下压实粉土的CBR试验研究[J]. 公路, 2013, 58(12): 161-165. |
[5] | 郝建新, 朱志铎, 虞娟, 钱芳. 加州承载比试验作用机理和影响因素研究[J]. 工程勘察, 2005(5): 7-8+39. |
[6] | 陈柏年, 朱凤艳, 韩勤. CBR试验内在机理研究及影响因素的分析[J]. 交通标准化, 2001(1): 28-30. |
[7] | 屈冉, 张大伟, 贺睿. 路基填料强度(CBR值)研究综述[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 29(4): 276-279. |
[8] | 中华人民共和国交通部. JTG 3430-2020公路土工试验规程[S]. 北京: 人民交通出版社, 2020. |
[9] | Carter, M. and Bentley, S.P. (2016) Soil Properties and Their Correlations. Grading and Plasticity, 34-48.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119130888 |
[10] | 中华人民共和国建设部. GB/T50145-2007土的工程分类标准[S]. 北京: 中国计划出版社, 2008. |