raybet体育在线 院报 ›› 2025, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (9): 122-130.DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20240847

• 岩土工程 • 上一篇    下一篇

气动振杆密实法处理疏浚粉土地基对比试验研究

杜广印1,2(), 朱哲宇1,2(), 韩时捷3, 庄仲旬1,2, 吴恺一4, 吴恺1,2   

  1. 1 东南大学 交通学院,南京 210096
    2 江苏省城市地下工程与环境安全重点实验室,南京 210096
    3 中交第三航务工程勘察设计院有限公司,上海 200032
    4 中建港航局集团有限公司,上海 200433
  • 收稿日期:2024-08-09 出版日期:2025-09-01 发布日期:2025-09-01
  • 通信作者:
    朱哲宇(1999-),男,江苏镇江人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向为特殊地基处理。E-mail:
  • 作者简介:

    杜广印(1964-),男,江苏徐州人,教授,博士,主要研究方向为特殊地基处理。E-mail:

  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(42277153); 国家自然科学基金项目(41977241)

Comparative Experimental Study on Treatment of Dredged Silty Soil Foundation by Pneumatic Vibratory Probe Compaction Method

DU Guang-yin1,2(), ZHU Zhe-yu1,2(), HAN Shi-jie3, ZHUANG Zhong-xun1,2, WU Kai-yi4, WU Kai1,2   

  1. 1 School of Transportation, Southeast University,Nanjing 210096,China
    2 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering and Environmental Safety,Nanjing 210096,China
    3 CCCC Third Harbor Consultants Co.,Ltd.,Shanghai 200032,China
    4 China Construction Harbour Construction Co.,Ltd.,Shanghai 200433,China
  • Received:2024-08-09 Published:2025-09-01 Online:2025-09-01

摘要:

为了提高疏浚粉土地基密实度并消除其液化风险,开展了气动振杆密实法处理疏浚粉土地基的现场试验。根据施工全过程的孔隙水压力监测结果,计算出单个振点的有效加固范围,确定了采用正三角形布置时的振点间距。研究结果表明,气动振杆密实法处理后土层含水率降低了5.9%~25.7%;孔隙比降低了6.1%~23.9%,各土层标准贯入试验击数提升1倍左右,CPT锥尖阻力提升39%~75%,面波波速提高18%左右。此外,与无填料振冲法和降水强夯法对比可知,气动振杆密实法的处理效果是无填料振冲法的1.5倍左右;降水强夯法在8 m深度以浅处理效果较好,但在其他土层,气动振杆密实法的处理效果约是降水强夯法的2~5倍。综上所述,气动振杆密实法可有效加固疏浚粉土地基,具有良好的推广应用前景。

关键词: 疏浚粉土, 气动振杆密实法, 降水强夯法, 孔压比, 原位测试

Abstract:

[Objective] To improve the density of dredged silty soil foundation and eliminate the liquefaction risk, we investigated the reinforcement effectiveness of pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method. The focus is on quantitatively analyzing the improvement in physical and mechanical properties of the treated soil, systematically evaluating the enhancement effects of the pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method, and establishing a scientific effectiveness assessment system, thereby providing a novel technical solution for the treatment of weak coastal foundations. [Methods] Comparative tests involving non-filler vibroflotation method and dynamic compaction with pre-drainage were conducted, supplemented by laboratory experiments and in-situ testing. First, field tests were carried out to evaluate the pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method for reinforcing dredged silty soil foundations, during which key construction parameters were determined through theoretical calculations and trial compaction. The excess pore water pressure during construction was monitored in real time using vibrating wire piezometers. Based on the analysis of the maximum pore pressure ratio, the effective horizontal reinforcement range per point was determined to be 1.15 m. Ultimately, a triangular point arrangement was adopted, with the spacing between vibro-points set at 1.8 m. Moreover, wellpoint dewatering was innovatively employed as an auxiliary measure. [Results] Pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method significantly improved the physical and mechanical properties of the soil: the moisture content decreased from the initial range of 25%-38% to 21.8%-35.5%, a reduction of 5.9%-25.7%, and the void ratio reduced from 0.7-1.07 to 0.63-1.02, a reduction of 6.1%-23.9%. Significant improvements were observed in cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts, and surface wave velocities of the soil layers. Notably, SPT blow counts increased by 60%-260%, static cone penetration (CPT) cone tip resistance rose by 39%-75%, and surface wave velocities showed an increase of 18%. All these indicators met design requirements. More importantly, the treated site was completely free from liquefaction risks, demonstrating a substantial enhancement in seismic performance. Comparison between non-filler vibroflotation method and dynamic compaction with pre-drainage revealed that while the dynamic compaction with pre-drainage performed well in shallow soil reinforcement, its effectiveness was limited for deep layers below 8 m. The non-filler vibroflotation method exhibited good performance in soils with high sand and silt content but showed a significant decline in effectiveness when clay content was elevated. Economic analysis indicated that dynamic compaction had higher construction costs, whereas the pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method and non-filler vibroflotation method had similar costs, demonstrating the former’s notable economic advantage. [Conclusions] The wellpoint dewatering auxiliary measure effectively resolves construction challenges associated with high-moisture-content surface soils, creating favorable conditions for the successful implementation of the pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method. Within the treatment zone, the pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method generates greater excess pore water pressures in the middle-to-lower soil layers. This not only induces premature liquefaction but also significantly improves drainage conditions in silty soil layers, thereby expanding the influence range of single-point vibration and substantially enhancing overall reinforcement effectiveness. Furthermore, this technique offers notable advantages including simple construction procedures, no filler requirement, low cost, high work efficiency, and energy-environmental benefits. These characteristics confer both significant economic and environmental advantages, demonstrating broad application prospects for treating weak coastal foundations.

Key words: dredged silty soil, pneumatic vibratory probe compaction method, precipitation compaction method, pore pressure ratio, in-situ measurements

中图分类号: 

Baidu
map