4.6 Article

An Experimental Study on the Solidification Treatment of Debris Flow Siltation

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15196860

关键词

debris flow; siltation; reinforcement treatment; strength; microscopic mechanism

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC1505403]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42172322]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the effects of different factors on the solidification strength of debris flow siltation were investigated using an orthogonal test scheme. The results showed that all four tested curing agents effectively improved the solidification strength of the siltation. The type of curing agent had the most significant impact on the strength.
In recent years, the resulting siltation from railway debris flow disasters has seriously affected the normal use of railway traffic lines and brought great challenges to rescue work. In view of this, we used an orthogonal test scheme to prepare different types of debris flow accumulation and carried out penetration resistance tests in order to explore the effects of different types of curing agents, the amount of curing agent added, the moisture content of debris flow siltation, and the grain gradation of debris flow sediment on the solidification strength of debris flow siltation. We also utilized scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to observe the microstructure and potential curing mechanism of the samples treated with different curing agents in attempt to discern the reasons for their different levels of strength. Our results show that the each of four curing agents tested can effectively improve the solidification strength of the siltation. Furthermore, we found that the type of curing agent had the largest impact on the curing strength of the siltation, followed by the moisture content of the siltation itself, the amount of curing agent added, and particle size. To achieve the best results, we recommend using 14% sulfoaluminate cement as the curing agent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据