Completely decomposed granite (CDG) and granite residual soil (GRS) are prone to trigger engineering accidents and geological disasters in South China. Despite that the weathering degree and engineering properties of CDG and GRS both vary remarkably, it is still a challenging task to distinguish CDG and GRS in practical geological investigation, in which the field geological appearance and the measured hit number of standard penetration test according to existing specification are taken as the major indicators for identification. In this paper, we discussed the relevant clauses about identifying CDG and GRS in some current specifications. In view of the difference in gradation between of CDG and GRS, i.e., the former is usually clayey sand, while the latter sand clay, we suggest to take grading characteristic as the subsidiary index of identifying CDG and GRS.According to physical properties test and triaxial shear test of soil samples from a foundation pit, we found that GRS sample had a larger pore ratio with a poor gradation lack of some intermediate particle sizes. Both the undisturbed CDG and GRS present initial structural features reflected by shear zone with strain localization in shear deformation, displaying drum-shear zone failure mode; the remolded samples present a standard drum-like failure mode. The friction angle of drainage shear of undisturbed CDG is slightly higher than that of GRS, and the cohesion obviously higher as CDG boasts a stronger structure; the cohesion of remolded CDG and remolded GRS are close due to the lack of original structure. Under low confining pressure, the structural strength of undisturbed soils contribute up to 60%-70% of the total shear strength, and the compression action of high confining pressure can completely destroy the initial structure of soils, in which case the structural strength will be eliminated.
Key words
completely decomposed granite /
granite residual soil /
physical and mechanical property /
structural strength /
shear band
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 吴能森. 结构性花岗岩残积土的特性及工程问题研究[D]. 南京:南京林业大学, 2005.
[2] 庞小朝. 深圳原状全风化花岗岩的试验和本构模型研究[D]. 北京:中国被铁道科学研究院, 2011.
[3] 曾 朋. 花岗岩残积土的压实特性及崩解特性研究[D].广州:华南理工大学, 2012.
[4] 胡其志,洪昌伟,刘 恒,等.黏粒含量对花岗岩残积土渗透与强度特性的影响[J].长江科学院院报,2020,37(9):64-69.
[5] 刘 攀,周小文,何勇彬,等.考虑固结路径影响的花岗岩残积土不排水剪切试验研究[J].长江科学院院报,2016,33(6):70-74.
[6] 周小文,刘 攀,胡黎明,等.结构性花岗岩残积土的剪切屈服特性试验研究[J].岩土力学,2015,36(增刊2):157-163.
[7] 张 昆,郭菊彬.花岗岩残积土及全风化土标贯击数的概率分布[J].铁道工程学报,2008(2):6-8,25.
[8] 张运标,陈枝东,张领帅.深圳地区燕山期花岗岩风化带划分及鉴别[J].广东土木与建筑,2020,27(1):9-13.
[9] 吴宏伟,尚彦军,曲永新,等. 香港花岗岩风化分级化学指标体系与风化壳分带[J]. 工程地质学报,1999(2): 29-38.
[10] 尚彦军,王思敬,岳中琦,等. 全风化花岗岩孔径分布-颗粒组成-矿物成分变化特征及指标相关性分析[J]. 岩土力学,2004,25(10): 1545-1550.
[11] 吴仕川. 花岗岩风化带的野外划分方法[J]. 土工基础,2013,27(6):105-106.
[12] 伍炜豪. 花岗岩残积土矿物成分与化学成分的统计分析[D]. 广州:华南理工大学, 2014.