PDF全文阅读

赵文波¹ , 于世卿¹ , 褚付克² , 黄启龙¹ , 赵秀松¹ , 胡海华¹

( 1. 中铁二十三局集团第四工程有限公司 ，四川 成都 610000;  2. 河南省交通规划设计研究院股份有限公司 ，河南 郑州 450000)

摘   要： 本文对比研究了水泥和以工业废渣为材料制备的 2 种土壤改良剂对路床土壤的改良作用 。研究表明： 改良剂 1#和 P ·F 32. 5 水泥基本具有相等的改性效果 ，改良剂2#由于具有更高的钙含量 ，CBR 和 7 d 无侧 限强度提升效果更明显； 材料成本降低10% ~ 20% , 具有明显的价格优势，相对水泥不会对周围农田产生环境破坏； 与传统的水泥固化剂施工艺相同 ，具有无需增加额外施工成本的优势； 同时改良剂 2#对路基承载力及固化土层弹性模量的改善效果明显优于 P ·F 32. 5 水泥。

关键词： 工业废渣； 改良剂； 稳定土； CBR; 无侧限抗压强度

中图分类号： U414. 1      

文献标志码： A       

文章编号： 1005-8249 (2023) 06-0064-06

DOI : 10. 19860/j.cnki.issn1005-8249.2023.06.010

ZHAO Wenbo¹ , YU Shiqing¹ , CHU Fuke² , HUANG Qilong¹  ( 1. China Railway 23rd Bureau Group 4th Engineering Co. ，Ltd. ，Chengdu 610000 , China;

2. Henan Provincial Transportation Planning and Design Institute Co. ，Ltd. ，Zhengzhou 450000 , China)  

Abstract: This paper studies and compared the effect of cement and soil modifier prepared from industrial waste residue on the improvement of road bed soil. The results showed that modifier 1# and P.F 32.5 cement have almost the same modification effect; due to its higher calcium content, the CBR and 7d unconfined strength of modifier 2# were improved more significantly. The material cost of modifier was reduced by 10%~20%, which had obvious price advantage. Compared with cement, Environmental damage was not caused to the surrounding farmland. With the traditional cement curing agent application process, it had the advantage of no additional construction cost. Meanwhile, the improvement effect of modifier 2# on the bearing capacity of roadbed and elastic modulus of solidified soil layer was obviously better than that of P.F 32.5 cement.

 Keywords: industrial waste residue; modifier; stabilized soil; CBR; unconfined strength

 

∗基金项目： 河南省交通运输厅科技项目项目  (2021J9) 。

作者简介： 赵文波  ( 1972—) , 男 ，高级工程师 ，主要从事 土木工程建设管理工作。

收稿日期： 2023-09-26