Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Forces

Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute >

2025 , Vol. 42 >Issue 1: 144 - 151

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11988/ckyyb.20230841

Rock-Soil Engineering

Large-scale Indoor Direct Shear Test on Fiber-reinforced Loess in Consideration of Distribution Effect

  • LIU Xin , 1, 2 ,
  • XU Wei-neng 1 ,
  • HUANG Guang-jing , 1 ,
  • LAN Heng-xing 1, 3
Expand
  • 1 School of Geological Engineering and Surveying and Mapping,Chang’an University,Xi’an 710054,China
  • 2 Key Laboratory of Ecological Geology and Disaster Prevention of Ministry of Natural Resources, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710054, China
  • 3 State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

Received date: 2023-08-03

  Revised date: 2023-09-19

  Online published: 2025-01-21

Fold

Abstract

To investigate the effects of polypropylene fiber length, content, and distribution on loess reinforcement, a large-scale indoor direct shear test was designed for both uniform and non-uniform reinforcement schemes. In the non-uniform reinforcement, the fiber content was varied on both sides of the shear box and rammed into the soil in three layers. The curves of shear strength versus shear strain and shear strength indices of the reinforced loess were obtained. The results indicate: 1) Incorporating polypropylene fibers significantly enhances loess shear strength, with the reinforcement effect influenced by fiber length, dosage, and normal stress coupling. 2) In the uniform reinforcement scheme, a fiber length of 12 mm and a content of 0.5% achieves the best reinforcement effect. In the non-uniform reinforcement scheme, the influence range of the shear plane is less than 15 mm at normal stress of 50 kPa, slightly greater than 35 mm at 100 kPa, and further increased at 200 kPa. 3) The distribution pattern of fibers significantly impacts the reinforcement effect. Compared to a uniform 0.8% content group, non-uniform reinforcement with 0.5% content on both sides yields better results, as it avoids fiber agglomeration and ensures soil-fiber adhesion. These findings are expected to provide valuable insights for optimizing loess fiber reinforcement.

Key words： fiber-reinforced loess; large-scale indoor direct shear test; non-uniform reinforcement; influence range of shear surface; fibre distribution; shear strength; optimized reinforcement

Cite this article

LIU Xin , XU Wei-neng , HUANG Guang-jing , LAN Heng-xing . Large-scale Indoor Direct Shear Test on Fiber-reinforced Loess in Consideration of Distribution Effect[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2025 , 42(1) : 144 -151 . DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20230841

开放科学(资源服务)标识码(OSID):

0 引言

加筋技术可以增强纤维与土颗粒的粘结,减小土体受外荷载时的变形,提高土体抗剪强度[1⇓-3],并且具有造价低廉、施工简便等优点,因此在公路、铁路等交通基础设施建设中得到了广泛运用[4],纤维材料因其具有易获取、强度高、密度低以及化学性能稳定(耐腐蚀)等良好的性能,在掺加量较少的情况下,可以形成纤维-土复合体来有效加固土体,吸引了一批学者的研究[5⇓⇓⇓⇓-10]。例如唐朝生等[11]指出聚丙烯纤维的加入能够成倍地提高石灰土和水泥土抗剪强度,改善土体的水稳性。
掺入纤维的含量和长度是影响加固效果的2个关键因素。一般认为纤维含量增加,可提高加筋土的抗剪强度[5,12⇓⇓⇓-16];当纤维长度增加,更多的筋-土复合体参与到剪切行为[13],加筋土的抗剪强度也随之增加[17]。而王伟等[18]认为长短不一、长短相间的组合方式更有利于土颗粒与纤维之间的摩擦从而使得抗剪强度增加。Mirzababaei等[19]同时考虑了掺入纤维的含量和长度,发现在掺入含量(0.25%)较低时,10 mm长度的纤维加固效果优于19 mm的情况,抗剪强度受纤维长度和含量共同影响;Ahmad等[20]研究中也发现,随着纤维长度增加到30 mm,剪应力并非线性增加,在长纤维和非常高的纤维含量情况下,甚至会减弱土壤颗粒之间的黏结。由此,不难发现掺入纤维的长度和含量耦合影响加固效果。
此外,纤维的分布对加固效果也有明显影响。例如高磊等[21]、Consoli等[22]、Prabakar等[23]和褚峰等[24]分别对黏土、砂土、软土以及黄土进行研究时,以均匀分布的形式掺入纤维,发现加筋土的黏聚力显著增加,内摩擦角变化不大;而吴燕开等[25]对黏土采用随机分布的形式掺入纤维,得到了与之不同的结论,即内摩擦角最大增幅可达约9°。魏丽等[26]和李敏等[27]对石灰粉煤灰固化土和石灰土进行了相关研究,也发现不同的布筋形式对加筋土的内摩擦角和黏聚力都有影响。
为厘清掺入纤维长度和含量的耦合影响关系以及纤维分布对加固效果的影响。本文开展了室内大型直剪试验,采取均匀与不均匀加筋方案,系统讨论了聚丙烯纤维的掺量、长度以及分布形式在室内大型剪切试验中的加固效果差异和机制。本文的研究成果有望为选取合适的聚丙烯纤维的长度、含量、分布形式进行黄土加筋提供参考。

1 试验设计

1.1 试验材料

试验所用加筋材料为聚丙烯纤维。聚丙烯纤维是一种化学性能稳定、耐老化、耐腐蚀的高强度束状单纤维(图1)。与其他纤维相比,聚丙烯纤维具有较高的极限伸长量,并且密度较低(表1)。试验用土取自陕西省延安市南沟地区,依照《土工试验方法标准》(GB/T 50123—2019)[28]对其进行测定,得到其天然密度为1.77 g/cm3,天然含水率为13.51%,液限为31.4%,塑限为19.23%,塑性指数Ip为11.91;试验用土的粒径级配曲线如图2所示,黏粒(<5 μm)含量为8.2%,粉粒(5~75 μm)含量为85.2%,砂粒(>75 μm)含量为6.6%,为粉质黏土。
图1 束状聚丙烯纤维

Fig.1 Bundled polypropylene fibers

表1 聚丙烯纤维物理力学参数

Table 1 Physical properties of polypropylene fiber

密度/
(g·cm-3)		 直径/
μm		 相对
密度		 弹性模量/
MPa		 断裂拉
伸率/%		 极限伸
长量/%		 抗拉强度/
MPa
0.91 32.7 2.65 4326 28.4 18 469
图2 重塑黄土粒径级配曲线

Fig.2 Particle distribution curve of remoulded loess

1.2 试验设备

本研究试验仪器采用VJT2780A大型直剪仪,其实物图和工作示意图如图3所示。该仪器可控制水平应变速率:0.000 1~10 mm/min;最大的剪切位移达45 mm;最大法向荷载为100 kN;上、下盒的内壁尺寸为300 mm×300 mm×100 mm。需要注意的是,在进行加筋土的直剪试验时,剪切盒的尺寸对试验结果影响很明显[29-30],尤其是小尺寸的剪切盒,边界效应影响更大,往往会给试验数据造成误差;因此ASTM规范[31]建议加筋土的室内大型直剪试验中,剪切盒的尺寸应当考虑筋材、测试土体的粒径等信息,不得小于300 mm×300 mm×50 mm。本试验仪器满足上述要求。
图3 VJT2780A大型直剪仪

注:①为竖向位移传感器;②为法向荷载控制单元;③为水平位移传感器;④为控制系统;⑤为水平位移加载装置。

Fig.3 VJT2780A large direct shear instrument

1.3 制样和试验方案

本研究对所有试样进行非饱和固结快剪直剪试验,主要分为以下几步(图4):①将取回的黄土研磨后过2 mm标准筛,然后放入烘箱至少24 h后取出备用;将准备好的干土配制到目标含水率,同时加入相应质量的聚丙烯纤维拌制均匀。②加入每层(共3层)需要的加筋土。③夯实至目标高度后将加筋土表面刮毛,这样是为了使试样具有更好的整体性,重复②、③操作直至完成装样达到目标孔隙比(0.699)附近,上述操作可保证试样均匀性[32]。④施加相应的法向应力(50、100、200 kPa)进行固结,等待固结稳定。⑤开始剪切,水平剪切速率为0.08 mm/min,直至15%应变,试验结束。
图4 试验流程

Fig.4 Test processes

试验选用的含水率为13.2%(由野外取样实测含水率确定);纤维的质量根据每个试样黄土干质量百分比来进行掺加,所选的含量(FC)为0.5%、0.8%,长度(L)为6、12 mm;试样目标孔隙比为0.699。
为考虑纤维分布对加固效果的影响,试验分为整体均匀加筋剪切和不均匀加筋剪切2部分。具体方案分别由表2和表3给出。
表2 素土及均匀加筋试验方案

Table 2 Test scheme of plain soil and uniform reinforcement

法向应力
σ/kPa		 方案1 方案2 方案3 方案4
L/mm FC/% L/mm FC/% L/mm FC/% L/mm FC/%
50 0 0 6 0.5 6 0.8 12 0.5
100 0 0 6 0.5 6 0.8 12 0.5
200 0 0 6 0.5 6 0.8 12 0.5
表3 不均匀加筋试验方案

Table 3 Test scheme of non-uniform reinforcement

法向应力
σ/kPa		 方案1 方案2 方案3 方案4
H0.8%/
mm		 H0%/
mm		 H0.8%/
mm		 H0%/
mm		 H0.8%/
mm		 H0.5%/
mm		 H0.8%/
mm		 H0.5%/
mm
50 15 85 35 65 15 85 35 65
100 15 85 35 65 15 85 35 65
200 15 85 35 65 15 85 35 65
不均匀加筋方案中,加筋土分3层装入剪切盒,选用纤维的长度均为12 mm。表中,H0.8%指中间层加筋土的高度,H0%和H0.5%指的是两侧加筋土的高度,下标表示纤维的含量百分比,试样总高度为100 mm。不均匀加筋剪切的布筋情况见图5。如图5(a)、图5(b)所示,中间层加筋土高度为15 mm(H0.8%=15 mm),两侧分别为素土和0.5%含量加筋土(H0%=85 mm、H0.5%=85 mm);图5(c)、图5(d)为中间层加筋土高度35 mm(H0.8%=35 mm),两侧分别为素土和0.5%含量的加筋土(H0%=65 mm、H0.5%=65 mm)。
图5 不均匀加筋分布

Fig.5 Distribution of fibers in the non-uniform reinforcement scheme

2 试验结果及讨论

2.1 均匀加筋剪切

2.1.1 纤维长度对抗剪强度的影响

图6为掺入不同长度纤维加筋土(FC=0.5%)的抗剪强度-剪切应变曲线。由图6可知,加入不同长度纤维后试样抗剪强度较素土均有不同程度的提高。在低法向应力(50 kPa)时,掺入6 mm和12 mm长度的纤维加筋黄土抗剪强度分别为89 kPa和91.7 kPa,差异很小。当法向应力增加至200 kPa,这2个数值分别为183 kPa和201.2 kPa,加固效果差异增大到18.2 kPa(9.9%)。即在较高的法向应力条件下,抗剪强度随着纤维长度的增加而增大。实际上,吴瑞潜等[33]在研究聚丙烯纤维加固非饱和黏土的剪切特性时,也观察到了在较低法向应力条件时,3种纤维长度(L=6、12、19 mm)的土样抗剪强度差距较小的类似现象。
图6 不同纤维长度加筋土及素土抗剪强度-剪切应变曲线

Fig.6 Curves of shear strength versus shear strain of plain soil and reinforced soil with different fiber lengths

分析这种差异性的原因,其一可能是法向应力的增大导致了纤维和土颗粒之间的摩擦力和黏结效应增强,进而导致抗剪强度提高。其二则可能是随着法向应力增大,剪切面影响范围增大,而纤维长度的增加,使之更加有效地参与到剪切行为中。为了便于理解剪切面范围在剪切活动中的影响,绘制了不同长度单纤维和剪切面影响范围的示意图。如图7所见,在低法向应力时,剪切面影响范围较小,2种长度的纤维都能完全发挥各自的抗拔性能;当法向应力增大,剪切面影响范围增大,6 mm长度的纤维不足以提供足够的抗拔力,并且随着剪切位移的增加,该长度的纤维被拔出,故而宏观上加固效果表现为:12 mm纤维长度加筋组>6 mm纤维长度加筋组。
图7 不同长度纤维与剪切面影响范围关系示意图

Fig.7 Relationship between fiber length and the influence range of shear planes

2.1.2 纤维含量对抗剪强度的影响

图8为不同含量的加筋土(L=6 mm)试验结果。在低法向应力(50 kPa)时,加筋土纤维含量从0.5%增加到0.8%,加固效果没有明显变化;在较高法向应力时(200 kPa),2种含量加固效果的差异提高到了18.3 kPa(10.3%)。同样地,赵佳愉等[34]研究椰丝纤维加筋土的抗剪强度特性时,也有类似发现,即在法向应力为50 kPa时,掺入椰丝纤维含量为0.4%和0.6%的试样(L=10 mm),其抗剪强度差异不明显,而当法向应力为200 kPa时,二者差异显著。结合上文分析知,这同样可能也是因为法向应力改变了剪切面的影响范围,即在低法向应力时,剪切面影响范围较小,2种情况下实际发挥作用的纤维含量差异比较小,二者加固效果差异性不大,但是随着法向应力和剪切面影响范围的增大,更多的纤维参与到剪切活动中,二者差异性就逐渐体现出来,宏观上就表现为0.8%的加筋组加固效果优于0.5%加筋组。
图8 不同纤维含量加筋土及素土抗剪强度-剪切应变曲线

Fig.8 Curves of shear strength versus shear strain of plain soil and reinforced soil with different fiber contents

上述试验抗剪强度-剪切应变曲线为硬化型,对于该类型的曲线,可取应变15%对应的剪应力或最大剪应力作为试样的抗剪强度[35⇓-37]。综合考虑,选取应变15%对应的剪应力作为(也基本为最大剪应力)作为拟合计算各组抗剪强度指标的标准。关于均匀加筋试验各组加筋土和素土的剪应力-法向应力拟合结果如图9所示,其抗剪强度指标总结如表4。可以发现两点,首先,和素土相比,加筋土内摩擦角增大并不明显(最大变化仅4°),黏聚力发生了相对明显的增长;这与一般认为纤维加筋主要增加了土体黏聚力的观点一致[21⇓⇓-24];其次,对于加筋土,随着纤维长度和含量的增加,内摩擦角和黏聚力增大。
图9 素土及均匀加筋组抗剪强度-法向应力拟合结果

Fig.9 Fitting results between shear strength and normal stress for plain soil and uniformly reinforced soil groups

表4 均匀加筋试验加筋土和素土抗剪强度指标

Table 4 Shear strength indices of uniformly reinforced soils and plain soil

纤维长度/mm 纤维含量/% 内摩擦角φ/(°) 黏聚力c/kPa
0 0 31.5 39.3
6 0.5 31.7 60.8
0.8 34.6 62.0
12 0.5 35.5 61.3

2.2 不均匀加筋剪切

通过以上分析不难看出,无论是纤维的长度(L)还是含量(FC)对抗剪强度的影响都和法向应力水平有关,其原因在于不同的法向应力会导致剪切面的影响范围发生改变。为此,本文提出了不均匀加筋的试验方案,以探究纤维分布与纤维含量、剪切面影响高度等因素的耦合关系。方案中使用的纤维长度均为12 mm。

2.2.1 分布条件与高度耦合影响

为讨论剪切面的影响范围,本试验设计了两组中间层加筋土高度进行对比,分别为剪切盒高度的3/20(15 mm)和7/20(35 mm)。
图10(a)、图10(c)展示了不同法向应力下,不同中间加筋土高度试验组(H0.8%=15、35 mm)和素土的抗剪强度差异。关于本次试验不同法向应力条件下,剪切面影响范围总结如图11所示。当法向应力为50 kPa时,中间层加筋土高度由15 mm改变到35 mm对抗剪强度没有明显影响,据此判断,此时剪切面影响范围<15 mm;当法向应力增大到100、200 kPa时,这一影响范围随之增大,且>35 mm,因此抗剪强度表现为:整体均匀加筋组>加筋层高度35 mm组>加筋层高度15 mm组。
图10 中间加筋土不同高度的抗剪强度-剪切应变曲线

Fig.10 Curves of shear strength versus shear strain of reinforced soil with fibers in the middle at different heights

图11 剪切面高度作用范围示意图

Fig.11 Schematic diagram of the action range of shear plane height

2.2.2 分布条件与含量耦合影响

为了进一步验证剪切面影响范围以及实现布筋形式的优化,通过改变两侧土体的加筋含量(FC=0%、0.5%)进行了分布条件与含量耦合影响的研究。结果如下:
图12为改变两侧加筋土含量(FC=0%,0.5%)的试验结果。由图12(a)可知,当法向应力为50 kPa时,两侧为素土和0.5%含量加筋土试验组的抗剪强度与均匀加筋情况(FC=0.8%)没有明显差异。结合2.2.1节的分析可知,此时剪切面影响范围较小,实际参与剪切的加筋土高度范围没超过中间层加筋土的高度,即剪切面影响范围没有>15 mm。当法向应力增大到100 kPa(图12(b)),剪切面影响范围增大,且>35 mm,需要更多两侧加筋土参与到剪切中,因此在加固效果上表现为两侧0.5%含量加筋组优于两侧为素土的试验组。综合上文分析知,剪切面影响范围决定了实际参与到剪切活动中纤维的含量。
图12 两侧加筋土不同含量的应力-应变抗剪强度-剪切应变曲线

Fig.12 Curves of shear strength versus shear strain of reinforced soil with fibers on both sides with different contents

除此之外,还发现在法向应力为100 kPa时,两侧为0.5%含量加筋土的试样抗剪强度要略高于均匀加筋含量为0.8%的试样。说明了整体均匀加筋并非最优布筋方式,应当结合剪切面影响范围优化布筋方式,提高土体强度,节约材料。
关于不均匀加筋方案各组的剪应力-法向应力拟合结果如图13所示,其抗剪强度指标总结如表5。与均匀加筋试验不同,不均匀加筋试验各组加筋土相较于素土,不仅黏聚力发生了明显的增长,而且内摩擦角整体也发生了相对明显的变化。这也进一步验证了纤维分布会造成内摩擦角发生相对明显增长的观点[25]。
图13 不均匀加筋组抗剪强度-法向应力拟合结果

Fig.13 Fitting results between shear strength and normal stress for non-uniformly reinforced soil group

表5 不均匀加筋试验抗剪强度指标

Table 5 Shear strength indices of non-uniformly reinforced soils

中间加筋土
高度/mm		 两侧加筋土
含量/%		 内摩擦角
φ/(°)		 黏聚力
c/kPa
15 0 38.4 60.5
0.5 41.9 57.6
35 0 46.3 64.9
0.5 47.3 62.7

2.3 讨论

由上文知,相较于素土,无论是均匀加筋还是不均匀加筋方案中,黏聚力都发生了较为明显的增长。因为纤维分散在土体中形成了空间网状结构,为土颗粒提供空间约束力,增强了土体的整体性,使得土颗粒之间更好地接触。
在不均匀加筋方案中还发现,当法向应力为100 kPa时,降低两侧纤维含量后的加固效果比整体0.8%均匀加筋效果更好。笔者认为主要有2个原因,首先如图14所见,为掺入0.8%较高含量纤维制成的试样,可以看到出现了较明显的成团现象,因此影响了纤维网的形成,减弱了土颗粒和纤维的粘结。并且该现象在卢浩等[5]和高磊等[38]的研究中也有发现。其次,如图15所示,高、低含量纤维同时分布于土体中时,不仅形成了纤维网,为土颗粒提供空间约束力,同时局部成团纤维之间互相交织,存在摩擦作用,提高了土体的摩擦强度。因此其抗剪强度指标相比于素土,内摩擦角和黏聚力都发生了较明显的增长。
图14 含量0.8%纤维试样的分布情况

Fig.14 Distribution of fiber at a content of 0.8% in the sample

图15 掺入不同含量纤维的加固机制

Fig.15 Reinforcement mechanism of adding fibers at different contents

3 结论

(1)纤维加筋的加固效果受到纤维长度、含量和法向应力的耦合影响,具体关系是法向应力水平影响着剪切面影响范围,剪切面影响范围决定了实际参与到剪切活动中的纤维长度和含量。
(2)通过设计的不均匀加筋试验,证明了剪切面影响范围随着法向应力的增大而增大。
(3)纤维的分布对加固效果具有明显影响,将不同含量纤维分层掺入黄土可以兼顾内摩擦角和黏聚力的增强,加固效果更好。
(4)应当结合剪切面影响范围,选择合适的纤维含量和长度以及分布形式,实现布筋结构优化。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
观祖保, 杨挺, 吴巨贵, 等. 土工格栅处治老路拼接的加筋效应分析[J]. 中国公路学报, 2017, 30(6):215-222.

(GUAN Zu-bao, YANG Ting, WU Ju-gui, et al. Reinforced-effect Analysis of Geogrid Treatment in Old Road Widening[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2017, 30(6):215-222. (in Chinese))

[2]
晏长根, 顾良军, 杨晓华, 等. 土工格室加筋黄土的三轴剪切性能[J]. 中国公路学报, 2017, 30(10):17-24.

(YAN Chang-gen, GU Liang-jun, YANG Xiao-hua, et al. Triaxial Shear Property of Geocell-reinforced Loess[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2017, 30(10): 17-24. (in Chinese))

[3]
刘飞禹, 胡惠丽, 王军, 等. 粒孔比对筋-土界面循环剪切特性的影响[J]. 中国公路学报, 2019, 32(12): 115-122.

DOI

(LIU Fei-yu, HU Hui-li, WANG Jun, et al. Influence of Aperture Ratio on Cyclic Shear Behavior of Geogrid-soil Interface[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2019, 32(12): 115-122. (in Chinese))

DOI

[4]
李婷, 苏谦, 刘宝, 等. 加筋土挡墙水平位移解析计算与参数分析[J]. 中国公路学报, 2019, 32(5):47-56.

DOI

(LI Ting, SU Qian, LIU Bao, et al. Analytical Calculation and Parametric Analysis of Lateral Displacement of Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2019, 32(5):47-56. (in Chinese))

DOI

[5]
卢浩, 晏长根, 贾卓龙, 等. 聚丙烯纤维加筋黄土的抗剪强度和崩解特性[J]. 交通运输工程学报, 2021, 21(2): 82-92.

(LU Hao, YAN Chang-gen, JIA Zhuo-long, et al. Shear Strength and Disintegration Properties of Polypropylene Fiber-reinforced Loess[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2021, 21(2): 82-92. (in Chinese))

[6]
柴寿喜, 张琳, 魏丽, 等. 冻融作用下纤维加筋固化盐渍土的抗压性能与微观结构[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2022, 49(5): 96-105.

(CHAI Shou-xi, ZHANG Lin, WEI Li, et al. Compressive Properties and Microstructure of Saline Soil Added Fiber and Lime under Freezing-thawing Cycles[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2022, 49(5): 96-105. (in Chinese))

[7]
王龙威, 刘瑾, 奚灵智, 等. 基于高分子复合材料改良砂土三轴剪切试验研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2020, 47(4): 149-157.

(WANG Long-wei, LIU Jin, XI Ling-zhi, et al. Triaxial Shear Test of Sand Improved by Polymer Composite[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2020, 47(4): 149-157. (in Chinese))

[8]
马闫, 谢婉丽, 彭淑君, 等. 加筋方式对黄土动力特性影响三轴试验研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2017, 44(4): 50-56.

(MA Yan, XIE Wan-li, PENG Shu-jun, et al. Influence of the Reinforce Scheme on Dynamic Properties of the Reinforced Loess with Dynamic Triaxial Test[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2017, 44(4): 50-56. (in Chinese))

[9]
李沛达, 骆亚生, 陈箐芮, 等. 玄武岩纤维加筋黄土承载比试验研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2021, 48(1):131-137.

(LI Pei-da, LUO Ya-sheng, CHEN Qing-rui, et al. An Experimental Study of the California Bearing Ratio of Basalt Fiber Reinforced Loess[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2021, 48(1): 131-137. (in Chinese))

[10]
黄英, 何发祥, 符必昌. 玻璃纤维与红土的界面作用特性研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2003, 30(4):7-12.

(HUANG Ying, HE Fa-xiang, FU Bi-chang. Interaction between the Fiberglass and Laterite[J]. Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, 2003, 30(4): 7-12. (in Chinese))

[11]
唐朝生, 施斌, 蔡奕, 等. 聚丙烯纤维加固软土的试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2007, 28(9):1796-1800.

(TANG Chao-sheng, SHI Bin, CAI Yi, et al. Experimental Study on Polypropylene Fiber Improving Soft Soils[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2007, 28(9): 1796-1800. (in Chinese))

[12]
NATARAJ M S, MCMANIS K L. Strength and Deformation Properties of Soils Reinforced with Fibrillated Fibers[J]. Geosynthetics International, 1997, 4(1): 65-79.

[13]
FALORCA I M C F G, PINTO M I M. Effect of Short, Randomly Distributed Polypropylene Microfibres on Shear Strength Behaviour of Soils[J]. Geosynthetics International, 2011, 18(1): 2-11.

[14]
YANG B H, WENG X Z, LIU J Z, et al. Strength Characteristics of Modified Polypropylene Fiber and Cement-reinforced Loess[J]. Journal of Central South University, 2017, 24(3): 560-568.

[15]
WANG X, LIU K, LIAN B. Experimental Study on Ring Shear Properties of Fiber-reinforced Loess[J]. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2021, 80(6): 5021-5029.

[16]
安宁, 晏长根, 王亚冲, 等. 聚丙烯纤维加筋黄土抗侵蚀性能试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2021, 42(2):501-510.

(AN Ning, YAN Chang-gen, WANG Ya-chong, et al. Experimental Study on Anti-erosion Performance of Polypropylene Fiber-reinforced Loess[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2021, 42(2):501-510. (in Chinese))

[17]
朱敏, 倪万魁, 李向宁, 等. 黄土掺入聚丙烯纤维后的无侧限抗压强度和变形试验研究[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2020, 20(20): 8337-8343.

(ZHU Min, NI Wan-kui, LI Xiang-ning, et al. Study on Unconfined Compressive Strength and Deformation after Incorporating Polypropylene Fiber into Loess[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2020, 20(20): 8337-8343. (in Chinese))

[18]
王伟, 王中华, 曾媛, 等. 聚丙烯纤维复合土抗裂补强特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2011, 32(3):703-708.

(WANG Wei, WANG Zhong-hua, ZENG Yuan, et al. Experimental Study of Anti-cracking and Reinforcement Behaviors of Polypropylene Fiber Composite Soil[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2011, 32(3):703-708. (in Chinese))

[19]
MIRZABABAEI M, ARULRAJAH A, HAQUE A, et al. Effect of Fiber Reinforcement on Shear Strength and Void Ratio of Soft Clay[J]. Geosynthetics International, 2018, 25(4): 471-480.

[20]
AHMAD F, BATENI F, AZMI M. Performance Evaluation of Silty Sand Reinforced with Fibres[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2010, 28(1): 93-99.

[21]
高磊, 胡国辉, 陈永辉, 等. 玄武岩纤维加筋黏土三轴试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2017, 39(增刊1):198-203.

(GAO Lei, HU Guo-hui, CHEN Yong-hui, et al. Triaxial Tests Clay Reinforced by Basalt Fiber[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017,39(Supp. 1):198-203. (in Chinese))

[22]
CONSOLI N C, CASAGRANDE M D T, PRIETTO P D M, et al. Plate Load Test on Fiber-reinforced Soil[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003, 129(10): 951-955.

[23]
PRABAKAR J, SRIDHAR R S. Effect of Random Inclusion of Sisal Fibre on Strength Behaviour of Soil[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2002, 16(2): 123-131.

[24]
褚峰, 张宏刚, 邵生俊, 等. 人工合成类废布料纤维纱加筋黄土力学变形性质及抗溅蚀特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(增刊1): 394-403.

(CHU Feng, ZHANG Hong-gang, SHAO Sheng-jun, et al. Experimental Study on Mechanical Deformation and Corrosion Resistancecharacteristics of Loess Reinforced with Synthetic Waste Cloth Fiber Yarn[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2020, 41(Supp.1): 394-403. (in Chinese))

[25]
吴燕开, 牛斌, 桑贤松. 随机分布剑麻纤维加筋土力学性能试验研究[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2012, 39(6):77-81.

(WU Yan-kai, NIU Bin, SANG Xian-song. Experimental Study of Mechanical Properties of Soil Randomly Included with Sisal Fiber[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2012, 39(6):77-81. (in Chinese))

[26]
魏丽, 柴寿喜, 姜宇波. 含盐量与布筋方式对纤维加筋土抗压性能的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2017, 38(增刊2):210-216.

(WEI Li, CHAI Shou-xi, JIANG Yu-bo. Effects of Salt Content and Reinforcement Mode on Compression Properties of Fiber Reinforced Stabilized Soil[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2017, 38(Supp.2):210-216. (in Chinese))

[27]
李敏, 柴寿喜, 杜红普, 等. 麦秸秆加筋土的合理布筋位置和抗剪强度模型[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2010, 29(增刊): 3923-3929.

(LI Min, CHAI Shou-xi, DU Hong-pu, et al. Reasonable Reinforcement Position and Shear Strength Model of Reinforced Saline Soil with Wheat Straw and Lime[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 29(Supp.): 3923-3929. (in Chinese))

[28]
GB/T 50123—2019, 土工试验方法标准[S]. 北京: 中国计划出版社, 2019.

(GB/T 50123—2019, Standard for Geotechnical Testing Method[S]. Beijing: China Planning Press, 2019. (in Chinese))

[29]
LEE K M, MANJUNATH V R. Soil-geotextile Interface Friction by Direct Shear Tests[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2000, 37(1): 238-252.

[30]
施有志, 马时冬. 土工格栅的界面特性试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2003, 24(2): 296-299.

(SHI You-zhi, MA Shi-dong. Test for Interface Characterictics of Geogrid[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2003, 24(2): 296-299. (in Chinese))

[31]
ASTM D5321/D5321M-14, Standard Test Method for Determining the Shear Strength of Soil-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-Geosynthetic Interfaces by Direct Shear[S]. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: ASTM International, 2014.

[32]
LIU X, ZHANG N, LAN H. Effects of Sand and Water Contents on the Small-strain Shear Modulus of Loess[J]. Engineering Geology, 2019, 260: 105202.

[33]
吴瑞潜, 项祺辰, 杨光, 等. 聚丙烯纤维加筋绍兴非饱和黏土的剪切特性研究[J]. 力学季刊, 2023, 44(1):172-180.

(WU Rui-qian, XIANG Qi-chen, YANG Guang, et al. Study on Shear Characteristics of Shaoxing Unsaturated Clay Reinforced with Polypropylene Fibers[J]. Chinese Quarterly of Mechanics, 2023, 44(1):172-180. (in Chinese))

DOI

[34]
赵佳愉, 孔亚平, 高小虎, 等. 椰丝纤维加筋土的抗剪强度及界面数量特性研究[J]. 公路交通科技, 2023, 40(7): 36-44.

DOI

(ZHAO Jia-yu, KONG Ya-ping, GAO Xiao-hu, et al. Study on Shear Strength and Interface Quantity Characteristics of Coir Fiber Reinforced Soil[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2023, 40(7): 36-44. (in Chinese))

[35]
魏厚振, 汪稔, 胡明鉴, 等. 蒋家沟砾石土不同含水率直剪强度特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2008, 22(5): 221-224.

(WEI Hou-zhen, WANG Ren, HU Ming-jian, et al. Strength Behaviour of Gravelly Soil with Different Water Content in Jiangjiagou Ravine[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 22(5): 221-224. (in Chinese))

[36]
李志清, 文吉英, 姚国明, 等. 土石混合体大型直剪设备研发与应变锁骨强度特征试验研究[J]. 工程地质学报, 2023, 31(6): 1975-1988.

(LI Zhi-qing, WEN Ji-ying, YAO Guo-ming, et al. Development on Large Direct Shear Equipment for Soil-Rock Mixture and Experimental Study on Strength Characteristics of Strain Locking[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2023, 31(6): 1975-1988. (in Chinese))

[37]
FU W, ZHENG X, LEI X, et al. Using a Modified Direct Shear Apparatus to Explore Gap and Size Effects on Shear Resistance of Coarse-grained Soil[J]. Particuology, 2015, 23: 82-89.

[38]
高磊, 胡国辉, 杨晨, 等. 玄武岩纤维加筋黏土的剪切强度特性[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2016, 38(增刊1): 231-237.

(GAO Lei, HU Guo-hui, YANG Chen, et al. Shear Strength Characteristics of Basalt Fiber-reinforced Clay[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 38(Supp.1): 231-237. (in Chinese))

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd.