花岗岩残积土持水特性及强度特性研究
Study on the Water Retention and Strength Characteristics of Granite Residual Soil
摘要: 为探究花岗岩残积土的持水特性及抗剪强度随含水率的变化规律,以重塑花岗岩残积土为研究对象,采用滤纸法测定其土水特征曲线(SWCC),并通过直剪试验研究不同含水率条件下土体的抗剪强度特性。试验结果表明:花岗岩残积土的SWCC呈典型反“S”型,基质吸力由100 kPa升至3000 kPa时,体积含水率由40.0%降至25.0%,表现出较强的持水能力和明显的阶段性脱水特征;随着含水率从16.15%增加至23.93%,土体的黏聚力由15.8 kPa降至10.15 kPa,内摩擦角由34.2˚减小至28.3˚,抗剪强度显著下降;剪切曲线形态由应变软化型逐渐过渡为应变硬化型,反映出土体由脆性破坏向塑性破坏的转变。研究表明,含水率是影响花岗岩残积土抗剪强度的关键因素,研究成果可为非饱和土边坡稳定性分析提供理论依据。
Abstract: To investigate the water retention characteristics and the variation in shear strength with moisture content of granite residual soil, remolded granite residual soil was used as the research subject. The soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) was measured using the filter paper method, and the shear strength behavior of the soil under different moisture contents was studied through direct shear tests. The test results indicate that the SWCC of granite residual soil exhibits a typical inverse “S” shape. When the matrix suction increases from 100 kPa to 3000 kPa, the volumetric water content decreases from 40.0% to 25.0%, demonstrating strong water retention capacity and distinct staged dehydration characteristics. As the moisture content increases from 16.15% to 23.93%, the cohesion of the soil decreases from 15.8 kPa to 10.15 kPa, and the internal friction angle decreases from 34.2˚ to 28.3˚, indicating a significant reduction in shear strength. The shear stress-displacement curve transitions from strain-softening to strain-hardening behavior, reflecting a shift in the soil failure mode from brittle to plastic. The study shows that moisture content is a key factor affecting the shear strength of granite residual soil. These findings provide a theoretical basis for the stability analysis of unsaturated soil slopes.
文章引用:黄飞雪. 花岗岩残积土持水特性及强度特性研究[J]. 地球科学前沿, 2026, 16(4): 577-584. https://doi.org/10.12677/ag.2026.164052

参考文献

[1] 姚晓琴, 张豪杰, 阙云, 等. 水-气耦合下的土质边坡稳定系数场分析[J]. 福州大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 52(3): 337-344.
[2] 顾鑫, 仉文岗, 欧强, 等. 基于Chebyshev-Galerkin-KL展开的土质边坡稳定可靠度分析[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2023, 45(12): 2472-2480.
[3] 申春妮, 方祥位, 王和文, 等. 吸力、含水率和干密度对重塑非饱和土抗剪强度影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2009, 30(5): 1347-1351.
[4] 许冲, 代克滨, 薛智文, 等. 中国月尺度降雨型滑坡发生概率研究[J]. 地质力学学报, 2025, 31(5): 960-971.
[5] 黄雨, 毛无卫, 郭桢, 等. 气候变化背景下东南沿海降雨型复合链生滑坡灾害防控挑战及应对[J]. 中国科学基金, 2025, 39(6): 1006-1015.
[6] Fredlund, D.G. (2006) Unsaturated Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132, 286-321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] 白福青, 刘斯宏, 袁骄. 滤纸总吸力吸湿曲线的率定试验[J]. 岩土力学, 2011, 32(8): 2336-2340.
[8] 任佳, 简文星, 陈小龙, 等. 树坪滑坡非饱和土的土-水特征曲线试验研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2016, 23(4): 14-19.
[9] 白福青, 刘斯宏, 袁骄. 滤纸法测定南阳中膨胀土土水特征曲线试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2011, 33(6): 928-933.
[10] Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R. and Widger, R.A. (1978) The Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, 313-321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[11] Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E. and Clifton, A.W. (1996) Model for the Prediction of Shear Strength with Respect to Soil Suction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, 379-392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] 缪林昌, 殷宗泽. 非饱和土的剪切强度[J]. 岩土力学, 1999, 20(3): 1-6.
[13] 周小文, 罗兴财. 全风化花岗岩与花岗岩残积土的判别及物理力学性质对比[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2022, 39(4): 1-7.
[14] 王港, 张先伟, 刘新宇, 等. 厦门花岗岩残积土的压缩变形特性及其微观机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2021, 42(12): 3291-3300, 3314.
[15] Leong, E., He, L. and Rahardjo, H. (2002) Factors Affecting the Filter Paper Method for Total and Matric Suction Measurements. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 25, 322-333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[16] 刘小文, 陈嘉帅, 刘星志. 花岗岩残积土的全吸力土-水特征曲线试验及模型研究[J]. 工程勘察, 2020, 48(6): 1-8.
[17] Gardner, W.R. (1958) Some Steady-State Solutions of the Unsaturated Moisture Flow Equation with Application to Evaporation from a Water Table. Soil Science, 85, 228-232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[18] van Genuchten, M.T. (1980) A Closed‐Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44, 892-898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[19] Fredlund, D.G. and Xing, A. (1994) Equations for the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31, 521-532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef