| Literature DB >> 36060535 |
Jinbo Sun1, Li Guo1, Liang Gong1, Fei Zheng2, Hao Hao3.
Abstract
In order to reasonably evaluate the stability of the embankment supported by the rigid pile composite foundation, a nonlinear algorithm calculation and analysis method for the stability of the nanosilica powder soft soil pile foundation is proposed. First, the soft soil foundation reinforced by the composite structure of "piles (prestressed pipe piles, (cement fly-ash gravel, CFG) piles)-pile caps-geotextile pads" is analyzed through the soft soil embankment test section of the Wenfu high-speed railway. Second, the compressive modulus under one-dimensional confining compression is calculated using the layered summation method. Finally, the deep lateral deformation of the pile foundation soil is measured by an inclinometer to evaluate the actual displacement of the pile foundation soil. In the standard method, the empirical coefficient 1.1-1.7 is multiplied on the basis of the calculation result of this method to correct the calculation error. Combined with the test results, it is shown that nanosilica powder can give full play to its excellent characteristics: promoting hydration speed and hydration degree through the reaction of pozzolan refining and consuming Ca(OH)2 crystals produced by cement hydration. Soft soils and modified soft soils: a certain amount of nanosilica powder can significantly improve the strength of soft soil at different ages.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36060535 PMCID: PMC9433247 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1451633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.698
Figure 1Relationship between the parameters of nanosilicon powder and compressive strength.
The strength growth rate of soft soil under different nanosilica powder parameters (unit%).
| Age (d) | Nanometer silica powder parameters (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 | 5 | 7.5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | |
| 7 | 14.2 | 16.6 | 39.3 | 45.6 | 81.2 | 192.8 | 252.8 | 220.7 |
| 28 | 18.5 | 26.6 | 41.5 | 42.9 | 112.6 | 203.7 | 257.3 | 292.3 |
| 60 | 6.5 | 8.8 | 33.9 | 54.6 | 112.6 | 186.2 | 271.2 | 228.3 |
Figure 2Relationship between CC1-2 and CCF size.
Figure 3E-P curve of subsoil.