水平联合竖直排水板真空预压法分层处理工程废泥浆

金锦强; 徐向明; 徐敏涛; 杨斌; 任凤娥; 邱寒; 吕有畅; 符洪涛; 李校兵; 蔡瑛; 陈志坚

doi:10.3724/j.gyjzG23101705

水平联合竖直排水板真空预压法分层处理工程废泥浆

doi: 10.3724/j.gyjzG23101705

1. 温州市瓯飞开发建筑投资集团有限公司, 浙江温州 325000;
2. 温州市龙达围垦开发建设有限公司, 浙江温州 325000;
3. 温州大学建筑工程学院, 浙江省软弱土地基与海涂围垦工程技术重点实验室, 滨海软土地基防灾减灾技术浙江省工程研究中心, 浙江省海涂围垦及其生态保护协同创新中心, 浙江温州 325035

基金项目:

温州市科技服务科协创新项目(kjfw43)。

国家自然科学基金项目(52178348, 52178350)

浙江省自然科学基金项目(LY20E080029)

温州市科研项目(S20210004)

温州市科研项目(S20240007)

详细信息

作者简介:
金锦强,高级工程师,主要从事软土地基处理等研究。

通讯作者:
徐敏涛,助理实验师,主要从事软土地基处理等研究,1053272113@qq.com。

计量
- 文章访问数: 19
- HTML全文浏览量: 4
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-10-17
- 网络出版日期: 2025-04-02

Layered Treatment for Construction Waste Slurry by Vacuum Preloading Methods Combined Vertical Drains with Horizontal Drains

1. Wenzhou Oufei Development Construction Investment Group Limited Company, Wenzhou 325000, China;
2. Wenzhou Longda Reclamation Development and Construction Limited Company, Wenzhou 325000, China;
3. College of Civil Engineering and Architecture of Wenzhou University, Key Laboratory of Engineering and Technology for Soft Soil Foundation and Tideland Reclamation of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang Engineering Research Center of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation for Coastal Soft Soil Foundation, Collaborative Innovation Center of Tideland Reclamation and Ecological Protection, Wenzhou 325035, China

摘要

摘要: 传统真空预压法处理工程废泥浆时效果往往不理想,竖直排水板容易发生弯曲变形,为提高排水固结效果,考虑水平排水板与竖直排水板在真空预压法中各自的处理特点,提出水平联合竖直排水板真空预压分层处理工程废泥浆的办法。通过6组室内模型试验,研究分析水平排水板-真空预压法(PHDs)、竖直排水板-真空预压法(PVDs)以及水平联合竖直排水板-真空预压法(PHDs-PVDs)三种真空预压方式的优缺点,以选取更高效的真空预压法处理工程废浆。对比研究不同试验组的真空度、孔隙水压力消散、土体表面沉降、累积排水量、真空以及真空固结后土体含水量和十字板剪切强度等试验结果。试验结果表明:采用PVDs时底部处理效果不够理想,一般土体的加固效果沿着土层深度不断减弱,当采用PHDs-PVDs时可有效改善深层土体的加固效果,在较高的真空压力以及上部土体自重所提供的堆载应力可有效促进底部土体的真空固结;采用PHDs时整体加固效果比采用PVDs的处理效果更佳,但每两层排水板中间以及土层表面排水路径较长,导致处理效果不佳;采用PHDs-PVDs时,可同时提升上层土体以及底层土体的强度,使得整体处理效果更加均匀;采用PHDs-PVDs处理时累积排水量与PHDs、PVDs相比分别提升10.30%、23.01%;土体平均强度能达到18~24 kPa,比PHDs的整体处理效果提升20%左右,比PVDs提升25%~35%。
- 真空预压法 /
- 水平联合竖直排水板-真空预压法 /
- 防淤堵 /
- 表层排水路径
Abstract: The effect of the traditional vacuum preloading method is often not ideal when treating engineering waste slurry, and the vertical drainage plate is easy to bend and deform. To improve the effect of drainage consolidation, consider the respective treatment characteristics of horizontal drainage plates and vertical drainage plates in the vacuum preloading method. The method of vacuum preloading and layered treatment for engineering waste slurry combined horizontal drains with vertical drains was proposed. Through 6 groups of indoor model tests, the advantages and disadvantages of three vacuum preloading methods, namely horizontal drainage plates-vacuum preloading method (PHDs), vertical drainage plates-vacuum preloading method (PVDs). and horizontal combined vertical drainage plate-vacuum preloading method (the combination of PHDs and PVDs), were studied and analyzed, and a more efficient vacuum preloading method was selected to treat engineering waste slurry. The test results of vacuum degree, pore water pressure dissipation, soil surface settlement, cumulative water discharge, vacuum, soil moisture content and cross plate shear strength after vacuum consolidation were compared and studied in different test groups. The test results showed that when PVDs were used, the bottom treatment effect was not ideal, and the reinforcement effect of the general soil was weakening along the depth of the soil layer. When the combination of PHDs and PVDs was used, the reinforcement effect of deep soil could be effectively improved, and the heap stress provided by the high vacuum pressure and the self-weight of the upper soil could effectively promote the vacuum consolidation of the bottom soil. When PHDs were used, the overall reinforcement effect was better than that of PVDs, but the drainage path in the middle of each two layers of drainage boards and the surface of the soil layer was longer, resulting in poor treatment effect. When the combination of PHDs and PVDs was used, the strength of the upper and bottom soil could be improved at the same time, making the overall treatment effect was more uniform, the strength of the upper soil and the bottom soil could be improved at the same time, so that the overall treatment effect was more uniform. The average strength of soil could reach 18 kPa to 24 kPa, which was about 20% higher than the overall treatment effect of PHDs and 25% to 35% higher than that of PVDs.
- vacuum preloading /
- the combination of PHDs and PVDs /
- anti-clogging /
- surface drainage path

HTML全文

参考文献(26)

[1]	曾芳金,钟颖炘,符洪涛,等.带肋排水板真空预压法加固工程废浆试验研究[J].江西冶金,2023,43(6):516-523.
[2]	郑刚,张军辉,章定文,等.地基处理技术现状与发展[J/OL].土木工程学报,2024:1-20[2024-04 -18].https://doi.org/10.15951/j.tmgcxb.23110916.
[3]	孙得磊.塑料排水板联合真空预压施工技术[J/OL].路基工程,2024:1-4[2024-04 -18].https://doi.org/10.13379/j.issn.1003-8825.202308038.
[4]	吴建奇,刘祥,李敏,等.土柱半径对疏浚淤泥真空固结的影响[J/OL].土木与环境工程学报(中英文),2024:1-9[2024-04-18].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/50.1218.tu.20221203.17 17.001.html.
[5]	张超,李熹.直排式真空预压法在海相软土地基处理中的效果分析[C]//中国水利学会.2022中国水利学术大会论文集(第六分册).上海:2022.
[6]	卢雪清,李航,刘飞禹.PHD-PVD真空预压联合电渗法处理工程废浆试验研究[J/OL].土木与环境工程学报(中英文),2024:1-8[2024-04-18].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/50.1218.TU.20221026.1127.004.html.
[7]	BARTH E F, REPONEN T, SUCCOP P. Evaluation of bioaerosol components, generation factors, and airborne transport associated with lime treatment of contaminated sediment[J]. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2009, 59(5):540-552.
[8]	SKARBEK R M, SAFFER D M. Pore pressure development beneath the decollement at the nankai subduction zone: implications for plate boundary fault strength and sediment dewatering[J/OL]. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 2009, 114(B7)[2009-07-01].https://doi: org/10.102992008JB006205.
[9]	ABUEL-NAGA H, BOUAZZA A. Equivalent diameter of a prefabricated vertical drain[J]. Geotextiles & Geomembranes, 2009, 27(3):227-231.
[10]	徐宏, 邓学均, 齐永正,等.真空预压排水固结软土强度增长规律性研究[J].岩土工程学报,2010,32(2): 285-290.
[11]	颜永国, 董志良, 杨昌斌,等.颗粒级配对真空预压法处理吹填土效果影响试验研究[J].岩土工程学报,2011,33(11): 1775-1779.
[12]	ANDA R, FU H T, WANG J, et al. Effects of pressurizing timing on air booster vacuum consolidation of dredged slurry[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2020,13(23):57-64.
[13]	CAI Y Q, WANG J, MA J J. Application of a new vacuum preloading method for tideland reclamation in Wenzhou, China[J]. Ground Improvement Case Histories, 2015, 201:381-397.
[14]	WANG J, CAI Y Q, FU H T, et al. Experimental study on a dredged fill ground improved by a two-stage vacuum preloading method[J]. Soils and Foundations, 2018, 118(42):255-268.
[15]	徐宏, 邓学均, 齐永正,等.真空预压排水固结软土强度增长规律性研究[J].岩土工程学报,2010,32(2): 285-290.
[16]	LIN W A, ZHAN X J, ZHAN L T, et al. Effect of FeCl3-conditioning on consolidation property of sewage sludge and vacuum preloading test with integrated PVDs at the Changan land fill, China[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2014(3):181-190.
[17]	曾芳金, 位会星, 王军,等. 分层插板真空预压法处理软土地基的试验研究[J]. 中国港湾建设, 2014(3): 31-36.
[18]	CHIBA T, SHINSHA H H, TANI Y. Development of a vacuum consolidation method employing horizontal drains[R]. Tokyo: Japan Dredging and Reclamation Engineering Association, 1992.
[19]	SHINSHA H, KUMAGAI T. Bulk compression of dredged soils by vacuum consolidation method using horizontal drains[J]. Geotechnical Engineering, 2014, 45(3): 78-85.
[20]	CHAI J C, HINO T, IGAYA Y, et al. Embankment construction with saturated clayey fill material using geocomposites[J]. Geotechnical Engineering: Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society,2011,42:35-41.
[21]	LEE K H, KANG M C, JUNG D S. Nonlinear consolidation analysis of reclaimed ground with lateral drain vacuum consolidation[J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2006, 10(6): 427-428.
[22]	王军, 蔡袁强, 符洪涛,等. 新型防淤堵真空预压法室内与现场试验研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2014, 33(6): 1257-1268.
[23]	韦剑锋. 天津市滨海新区吹填土工程处理现状及技术改进试验研究:吹填土水平辐射真空排水固结技术初探[J]. 工程勘察, 2008(6): 20-22.
[24]	王海燕, 张文彬, 刘凌云,等. 水平排水板真空预压法处理吹填土现场试验研究[J]. 中国港湾建设, 2016(12):54-58.
[25]	周洋, 蒲诃夫, 李展毅,等. 水平排水板-真空预压联合处理高含水率疏浚淤泥模型试验研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2019(A01):3246-3251.
[26]	张诚厚,王伯衍,曹永琅. 真空作用面位置对加固效果的影响[J]. 岩土工程学报,1990(1): 45-52.