自然科学版 英文版
自然科学版 英文版
自然科学版 英文版
自然科学版 英文版
英文版编委
自然科学版 英文版
英文版首届青年编委

您目前所在的位置:首页 - 期刊简介 - 详细页面

中南大学学报(自然科学版)

Journal of Central South University

第51卷    第8期    总第312期    2020年8月

[PDF全文下载]    [Flash在线阅读]

    

文章编号:1672-7207(2020)08-2152-10
不同方法快速测定土的含水率的可靠性研究
谌文武1, 2,陈浩鑫1, 2,毕骏1, 2,李湘1, 2

(1. 兰州大学 西部灾害与环境力学教育部重点实验室,甘肃 兰州,730000;
2. 兰州大学 土木工程与力学学院,甘肃 兰州,730000
)

摘 要: 烘干法是国标规定的土样含水率标准测试方法,但其存在测量时间长和无法现场测试的缺陷。为进一步满足现场快速检测土样含水率的要求,研究酒精燃烧法、微波炉法、炒干法和明火灼烧法这4种可以实现野外简易测试土的含水率方法的可靠性。试验选用岩土工程勘察规范规定的8类不同粒径的土样,在实验室中配置不同的含水率,使用烘干法和4种待验证的方法进行测试,比较不同方法的测试结果差异,并分析每种方法的测试误差来源以及随着土样粒径的变化趋势。试验结果表明:以烘干法的结果作为标准值,其余4种快速测量含水率的方法精度从高到低依次为酒精燃烧法、微波炉法、炒干法和明火灼烧法。酒精燃烧法、微波炉法都与烘干法所得含水率相近且呈线性关系,测试结果相对稳定且满足规范要求。炒干法和明火灼烧法所得含水率误差超过规范允许范围,且误差随土样的黏粒质量分数增大而增大。4种含水率测试方法产生的含水率误差的主要原因都是加热温度超过规范规定的105~110 ℃,导致土中的一些物质在高温下分解,引起额外的质量损失,含水率测试结果偏大。综合考虑,酒精燃烧法和微波炉法可适用于现场快速测量含水率,而炒干法和明火灼烧法不宜使用。

 

关键词: 含水率;微波炉法;酒精燃烧法;黏粒质量分数

Reliability of different methods for rapid measurement of soil moisture content
CHEN Wenwu1, 2, CHEN Haoxin1, 2, BI Jun1, 2, LI Xiang1, 2

1. Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China of Ministry of Education, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000 ,China;
2. College of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

Abstract:The drying method is a standard test method of soil moisture content suggested by national standard of PRC, but it generally takes a long time and is not suitable for field tests. In order to further meet the demand for rapid in-situ measurement of soil moisture, the reliabilities of alcohol burning method, microwave oven drying method, stir-fry method and flamethrower burning method to simply measure soil moisture in the field, were studied and compared. Soil samples with eight partical sizes provided by code for investigation of geotechnical engineering were employed, and their moisture contents were set to different levels in laboratory. Afterwards, the moisture contents of all the samples were tested by the drying method and the other four methods mentioned above, and the ultimate results of various methods were compared. Meanwhile, for each method, the sources of errors and the relationship between errors and partical sizes were revealed as well. The results show that taking the moisture contents derived from drying method as the reference values, alcohol burning method has the highest accuracy, followed by microwave oven drying method, stir-fry method and flamethrower burning method. The moisture content of alcohol burning method and microwave oven drying method are similar and both have linear correlations with those of drying method. Additionally, the moisture content are relatively stable and satisfy the requirements of code. For stir-fry method and flamethrower burning method, the corresponding errors exceed the allowable range and increase with the increase of the clay mass fraction. In terms of these four methods, the main reason causing errors is that the heating temperatures exceed the proposed range of 105-110 ℃, leading to decomposition of some substances in samples at high temperatures. Therefore, the moisture contents measured by these methods are relatively higher due to the additional mass loss.In conclusion, alcohol burning method and microwave oven drying method can be used for rapid measurement of moisture content in the field, whereas stir-fry method and flamethrower burning method may not be effective for in-situ tests.

 

Key words: moisture content; crowave oven drying method; alcohol burning method; clay mass fraction

中南大学学报(自然科学版)
  ISSN 1672-7207
CN 43-1426/N
ZDXZAC
中南大学学报(英文版)
  ISSN 2095-2899
CN 43-1516/TB
JCSTFT
版权所有:《中南大学学报(自然科学版、英文版)》编辑部
地 址:湖南省长沙市中南大学 邮编: 410083
电 话: 0731-88879765(中) 88836963(英) 传真: 0731-88877727
电子邮箱:zngdxb@csu.edu.cn 湘ICP备09001153号