Advances in Civil Engineering

Advances in Civil Engineering / 2021 / Article
Special Issue

Assessment and Prevention Methods of Collapse Disasters

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 9352208 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9352208

Yijun Zhou, Tao Xu, "Study on the Mixed Materials Proportion of Stratum Based on the Modelling Experiment", Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 9352208, 13 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9352208

Study on the Mixed Materials Proportion of Stratum Based on the Modelling Experiment

Academic Editor: Xiaohu Zhang
Received04 May 2021
Accepted19 May 2021
Published26 May 2021

Abstract

It is highly significant to select similar materials as well as the proportion of mixed materials in the model test. The mixed materials are used to simulate the stratum of the model test, including the iron ore powder, natural sands, gypsum, and lime. The stratum contains silty clay and silt soil. First of all, the symmetry coefficient of model mechanics parameters are calculated by the equation, and the symmetry ratio is 16 : 1. Second, calculate the proportion of compositions in mixed materials by the orthogonal test. The deviation method is used to analyze the mixed materials and how to influence the elastic modulus, cohesion, and friction angle. Finally, get the mixed materials which meet the symmetry theory and control factors.

1. Introduction

The model test is a method that uses the symmetry theory to reduce the size of the prototype. The symmetrical material is highly significant to the model test, and it usually contains some kinds of materials called mixed materials. Choosing suitable mixed materials can determine the model test whether success or not [13].

The mixed materials have been researched by some researchers. In abroad, Fumagalli [4] researched the model test of engineering geology initially in the 1960s. He used gypsum, powder of PbO, expansive soil, and water to simulate the stratum. Han et al. [5] researched the materials of MIB to study the rock and soil. Wang [6] selected the barite, quartz, and vaseline to study proportion of mixed materials in the model test. He found that different proportions of mixed materials lead to different results of the test. Chen and Zuo [7, 8] introduced several materials to study the influence for proportion of stratum, including PbO, gypsum, expansive soil, sands, starch, hardener, and so on.

The symmetry theory is mainly used to guide the model test to determine the proportion for the model and prototype [912].

The geology model test is highly complex and is affected by lots of factors, such as density of soil, cohesion of soil, friction angle of soil, elastic modulus of soil, and so on. Therefore, the much more important factor must be controlled, ignoring the less important factors [1317].

To measure the proportion of mixed materials, some kinds of methods are introduced, including the direct shear test, orthogonal test, deviation analysis method, three axes test, and so on [1826].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Determination of Symmetry Coefficient of Stratum
2.1.1. Symmetry Ratio

In the process of the model test, the symmetry ratio is a crucial step and also determines the model test whether it can correctly react to objective laws or not. The symmetry ratio is the ratio between the prototype and the model and marked C. The definitions of model test parameters are as follows: is the length, is the density, is the displacement, is the stress, is the strain, is the tensile strength, is the compressive strength, is the cohesion, is the friction angle, is Poisson’s ratio, and is the coefficient of friction. All of the parameters of symmetry ratio are given in Table 1.


ParameterLengthStrainDensityVolume forceDisplacementStressElastic modulusPoisson’s ratioFriction angleCohesion

Symmetry ratio

2.1.2. Establishment of Symmetry Equation

According to the symmetry theory, establish the equation of the prototype and model, including the equilibrium equation, geometric equation, and physical equation.(1)Establish a symmetrical condition by the equilibrium equation:Substitute the symmetry coefficient into formula (1), and the following formula is obtained:According to formulas (2) and (3), we can get the equation for .(2)Establish a symmetrical condition by the geometry equation:Substitute the symmetry coefficient into formula (5), and the following formula is obtained:According to formulas (6) and (7), we can get the equation for .(3)Establish a symmetrical condition by the physical equation:Substitute the symmetrical coefficient into formula (9), and the following formula is obtained.According to formulas (10) and (11), we get the equation for . The symmetry coefficient of Poisson’s is .

2.1.3. Symmetry Ratio Determination

According to the symmetry theory and the size of model box, finally the symmetry ratio in the model test is . It is assumed that the symmetry ratio of density is 1 : 1, and the dimensionless parameter is 1 : 1. Therefore, all of the parameters of symmetry ratio in the model test are given in Table 2.


ParameterGeometryDisplacementStressStrainCohesionFriction angleElastic modulusPoisson’s ratioBending moment

Prototype1616161161161164
Model111111111

3. Testing

3.1. Selecting of Stratum Symmetry Materials
3.1.1. Prototype Stratum Parameters

In the model test, selecting the soil of Shanghai is considered as the prototype stratum. The information of prototype stratum in Shanghai is given in Table 3. According to formula (13), the relationship between compression modulus and elastic modulus iswhere is the elastic modulus of soil, kPa; is the compression modulus of soil, kPa; is Poisson’s ratio of soil.


StratumDensity ()Cohesion ()Friction angle (°)Elastic modulus ()Poisson’s ratioThickness of stratum ()

Fill the soil18.5015110.330.64
Silty clay19.22017380.361.92
Silt soil17.51311100.3117.6
Silty clay18.42714420.346.24

Based on the exiting conclusion of research, finally, it selected mixed materials to research stratum in the model test, including iron ore powder, natural sands, gypsum, and lime. The iron ore powder and natural sands are aggregate, which have a great density. The gypsum and lime is the adhesive, which has better sticky property and great tension. In addition, the mixed materials are no harm for beings, easily available, low cost, and so on.

3.1.2. Determination of Mixed Materials Ratio Initially

According to the direct shear test for many times, rely on the density of symmetry ratio. The mixed materials ratio is obtained initially, as given in Table 4. The mixed materials are made to simulate each stratum, as given in Table 5.


Proportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and limeVolume ratio between water and gypsum

851.5 : 3.51 : 12 : 8


StratumThickness of prototype (m)Thickness of the model (cm)Mixed materials

Fill the soil0.644Natural sands
Silty clay1.9212Iron ore powder, natural sands, gypsum, and lime
Silt soil17.6110Iron ore powder, natural sands, gypsum, and lime
Silty clay6.2439Iron ore powder, natural sands, gypsum, and lime

From what has been researched above, it just studies about the mixed materials ratio for silty clay and silt soil.

3.2. Determination of Mechanics Parameters for Stratum Symmetry Materials
3.2.1. Design of the Orthogonal Test

The orthogonal test is used to research the proportion of mixed materials, design three factors and three levels, a total of nine tests, according to the purpose of the test, considering the density, cohesion, friction angle, elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio as the control index, as given in Table 6.


FactorsProportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and lime

Level 1802 : 32 : 1
Level 2851.5 : 3.51 : 1
Level 3901 : 41 : 2

3.2.2. Parameters of the Orthogonal Test

In order to get the five parameters, that is, density, cohesion, friction angle, elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio, the research adopts, respectively, the density test, the direct shear test, elastic modulus test, and Poisson’s ratio test.(1)Density testIn the density test, the formula of density is given in the following equation, and the instruments are given in Table 7. is the density of soil, ; is the total quality of soil and ring knife, ; is the quality of ring knife, g; is the volume of ring knife, .(2)Direct shear testThe direct shear test is a common method to measure the shear strength of soil. There is about four times to measure the shear strength in one direct shear test, under different vertical pressures, measuring the shear stress when soil is destroyed. The formula is given as follows: is the shear strength of soil, ; is the cohesion of soil, ; is the friction angle of soil; is the vertical stress, .(3)Poisson’s ratio and the elastic modulus testThe value of Poisson’s ratio is measured by two steps:(a)The lateral pressure coefficient of soil samples is obtained by the static pressure coefficient test(b)Getting the value of Poisson’s ratio according to the generalized Hooker’s law


NameRing knifeBalanceVernier caliperCompaction meter

ParametersInternal diameter, 6–8 cm; height 2 cmAccuracy, 0.1 gAccuracy, 0.02 mmDiameter,100 mm; height, 127 mm; volume, 997 cm3

The elastic modulus is measured from the lateral compression test of similar materials, as shown in Figure 1, and the formula is derived as follows:

According to generalized Hooke’s law,

Substituting formulas (17) and (18) into formula (16), the following equation is obtained:where is Poisson’s ratio; is the side pressure coefficient; is the elastic modulus, .

According to generalized Hooke’s law, the strain of Z axis is given in the following formula:

Substituting , into formula (20), the following equation is obtained:

Compression coefficient under confinement conditions is

Finally, formula (21) is given as follows:

Compression modulus under confinement conditions iswhere is the compression modulus under confinement conditions, ; is the porosity ratio; is the compression coefficient under confinement conditions, ; is the change of the amount porosity ratio; is the change of the amount vertical stress, .

4. Results and Analysis

According to design and the performed orthogonal test, the results of the orthogonal test obtained are given in Table 8.


Serial numberProportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and limeElastic modulus ()Cohesion ()Friction angle (°)Density ()Poisson’s ratio

1802 : 32 : 19.7616292.240.30
2801.5 : 3.51 : 117.952.831.282.160.35
3801 : 41 : 223.7816.0528.802.110.37
4852 : 31 : 119.9429.6926.602.280.34
5851.5 : 3.51 : 221.5622.8727.192.170.36
6851 : 42 : 18.4327.2925.112.050.31
7902 : 31 : 216.3720.0627.912.250.35
8901.5 : 3.52 : 12.4824.4827.582.150.30
9901 : 41 : 113.6810.4328.482.090.33

Because the value of density almost has no change, as well as Poisson’s ratio, they are out of consideration in the following test.

First of all, to produce the mixed materials, select the cohesive force, the friction angle, and the elastic modulus as the control factor.

4.1. Analysis of Cohesive Force as the Control Factor

According to the results of the orthogonal test for nine group data, calculate the relative error of nine group cohesive data. The smaller the value of relative error, the more accurate the results, as given in Table 9.


Serial numberProportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and limeRelative error

1802 : 32 : 115
2801.5 : 3.51 : 11.8
3801 : 41 : 215.05
4852 : 31 : 128.69
5851.5 : 3.51 : 221.87
6851 : 42 : 126.29
7902 : 31 : 219.06
8901.5 : 3.52 : 123.48
9901 : 41 : 19.43
10.6220.9221.59 = 160.68
25.6215.7213.31 = 17.85
17.3216.9218.66

, the sum of the data for every factor; , the average of the data for every factor; , the average of relative error for factor 1; , the average of relative error for factor 2; , the average of relative error for factor 3.

According to the orthogonal test and relative error of cohesive, the dispersion of factors for A, B, and C is

From the test results analysis and Figure 2, we can see that(a)The relationship between the A, B, and C is (b)The factor 2 point is inflection point, and the line changes suddenly when through the factor 2 point.(c) is the closest value, respectively, in each factor compared with the prototype cohesion value

4.2. Analysis of Friction Angle as the Control Factor

According to the results of the orthogonal test for nine group data, calculate the relative error of nine group friction angle data. The smaller the value of relative error, the more accurate the results, as given in Table 10.


Serial numberProportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and limeRelative error

1802 : 32 : 11.64
2801.5 : 3.51 : 11.84
3801 : 41 : 21.62
4852 : 31 : 11.42
5851.5 : 3.51 : 21.47
6851 : 42 : 11.28
7902 : 31 : 21.54
8901.5 : 3.52 : 11.51
9901 : 41 : 11.59
1.71.531.48 = 13.92
1.391.611.62 = 1.55
1.551.501.54

, the sum of the data for every factor; , the average of the data for every factor; , the average of relative error for factor 1; , the average of relative error for factor 2; , the average of relative error for factor 3.

According to the orthogonal test and relative error of friction angle, the dispersion of factors for A, B, and C is

From the test results analysis and Figure 3, we can see that(a)The relationship between the A, B, and C is (b)The factor 2 point is inflection point, and the line changes suddenly when through the factor 2 point.(c) is the closest value, respectively, in each factor for the prototype friction angle value

4.3. Analysis of Elastic Modulus as the Control Factor

According to the results of the orthogonal test for nine group data, calculate the relative error of nine group elastic modulus data. The smaller the value of relative error, the more accurate the results, as given in Table 11.


Serial numberProportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and limeRelative error

1802 : 32 : 112.94
2801.5 : 3.51 : 124.64
3801 : 41 : 232.97
4852 : 31 : 127.49
5851.5 : 3.51 : 229.8
6851 : 42 : 111.04
7902 : 31 : 222.39
8901.5 : 3.52 : 12.54
9901 : 41 : 118.54
23.5220.948.84 = 182.36
22.7818.9923.56 = 20.26
14.4920.8528.39

, the sum of the data for every factor; , the average of the data for every factor; , the average of relative error for factor 1; , the average of relative error for factor 2; , the average of relative error for factor 3.

According to the orthogonal test and relative error of elastic modulus, the dispersion of factors for A, B, and C is

From the test results analysis and Figure 4, we can see that(a)The relationship between the A, B, and C is (b)The factor 2 point is inflection point, and the line changes suddenly when through the factor 2 point.(c) is the closest value, respectively, in each factor for the prototype elastic modulus value

As shown in Figures 5 and 6, according to the standard, the samples are damaged when the displacement of samples has no change obviously in the direct shear test. Finally, the proportion of mixed materials is shown in Figure 7. Based on the above three control factors, use the direct shear test to get the proportion of mixed materials, as given in Table 12.


Mixed materialsProportion of iron and sand in mixture (%)Quality ratio between iron and sandQuality ratio between gypsum and lime

Silt soil802 : 32 : 1
Silty clay901.5 : 3.51 : 2

Use the parameters of mixed materials to compare with the parameters of the prototype and model. It is proved that the proportion of mixed materials is reasonable and meets the requirements of symmetry ratio, as given in Tables 13 and 14.


MaterialsElastic modulus ()Density ()Cohesion ()Friction angle (°)Poisson’s ratio

Prototype30.819.829150.36
Model1.9219.81.81150.36
Test2.0821.031.9820.360.33


MaterialsElastic modulus ()Density ()Cohesion ()Friction angle (°)Poisson’s ratio

Prototype1017.513110.31
Model0.717.51110.31
Test0.9518.72.1112.210.34

5. Conclusion

(1)According to the symmetry theory, establish the equilibrium equation, geometric equation, and physical equation for the prototype and model. The symmetry ration of mixed materials is 16 : 1.(2)Select the iron ore powder, natural sands, gypsum, and lime to be the mixed materials for model stratum. Use the orthogonal tests to get the proportion of compositions in mixed materials and analyze the results by the deviation.(3)The proportion of compositions in mixed materials of silt soil is that the proportion of iron and sand in mixture is 80%, the quality ratio between iron and sand is 2 : 3, and the quality ratio between gypsum and lime is 2 : 1.

The proportion of compositions in mixed materials of silty clay is that the proportion of iron and sand in mixture is 90%, the quality ratio between iron and sand is 1.5 : 3.5, and the quality ratio between gypsum and lime is 1 : 2.

It is proved that the proportion of compositions in mixed materials is reasonable and meets the requirements of symmetry ratio compared with the parameters of the prototype and model.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Fundamental Scientific Research Business Expenses of Provincial Universities in Hebei Province (JQN2020027) and North China University of Science and Technology Doctoral Research Startup Fund (BS201813).

References

  1. D. L. Luo, B. Gao, and Y. S. Sheng, “Study on similar materials of surrounding rock in tunnel anti-damping model test,” Journal of Shijiazhuang Railway Institute (Natural Science), vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 70–73, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  2. A. M. Chen, J. C. Gu, and J. Shen, “Application study on the geomechanical model experiment techniques,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 23, no. 22, pp. 3785–3789, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  3. H. M. Peng, Z. B. Peng, and J. T. Han, “Study on lithologic similar materials,” Guangdong Architecture Civil Engineering, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 12–17, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  4. E. Fumagalli, Static and Geomechanical Models, China Water Conservancy and Hydropower Press, Beijing, China, 1979.
  5. B. L. Han, X. L. Chen, and Y. L. Song, “Study on similar materials of rock mass,” Journal of Wuhan University of Hydraulic and Electrical Engineering, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 6–9, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  6. S. P. Wang, Model Test Study on the Tunnel with in Cracked Surrounding Rocks, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China, 2004.
  7. X. H. Chen, Brittle Material Structure Model Test, Water Resources and Electricity Press, Beijing, China, 2000.
  8. D. Q. Zuo, The Theory and Method of Model Test, Water Resources and Electricity Press, Beijing, China, 2001.
  9. W. F. Chen, Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials: Plasticity and Modeling, vol. 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994.
  10. F. Armero and S. Oller, “A general framework for continuum damage models. I. infinitesimal plastic damage models in stress space,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 37, no. 48–50, pp. 7409–7436, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. G. Meschke, R. Lackner, and H. A. Mang, “An anisotropic elastoplastic-damage model for plain concrete,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 703–727, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. Y. Wu, J. Li, and R. Faria, “An energy release rate-based plastic-damage model for concrete,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 43, no. 3-4, pp. 583–612, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. I. Carol, P. C. Prat, and C. M. López, “Normal/shear cracking model: application to discrete crack analysis,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 123, no. 8, pp. 765–773, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. G. T. Camacho and M. Ortiz, “Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 33, no. 20–22, pp. 2899–2938, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. F. Armero, “Large‐scale modeling of localized dissipative mechanisms in a local continuum: applications to the numerical simulation of strain localization in rate‐dependent inelastic solids,” Mechanics of Cohesive‐frictional Materials, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 101–131, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. J.-Y. Wu, “Unified analysis of enriched finite elements for modeling cohesive cracks,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 200, no. 45-46, pp. 3031–3050, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J.-Y. Wu and S.-L. Xu, “An augmented multicrack elastoplastic damage model for tensile cracking,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 48, no. 18, pp. 2511–2528, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. C. Zhu, K. Zhang, H. Cai et al., “Combined application of optical fibers and CRLD bolts to monitor deformation of a pit-in-pit foundation,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 2572034, 16 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Cervera and J.-Y. Wu, “On the conformity of strong, regularized, embedded and smeared discontinuity approaches for the modeling of localized failure in solids,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 71, pp. 19–38, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. E. Haghighat and S. Pietruszczak, “On modeling of discrete propagation of localized damage in cohesive-frictional materials,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 39, no. 16, pp. 1774–1790, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. C. Zhu, Z. Yan, Y. Lin, F. Xiong, and Z. Tao, “Design and application of a monitoring system for a deep railway foundation pit project,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 107591–107601, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. Su, Y. Wang, P. Yang, S. Han, N. Han, and W. Li, “Evaluating and modeling the idb of microencapsulated rejuvenator in aged bitumen by FTIR-ATR tests,” Materials, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 932–947, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. Q.-X. Meng, W.-Y. Xu, H.-L. Wang, X.-Y. Zhuang, W.-C. Xie, and T. Rabczuk, “DigiSim-an open source software package for heterogeneous material modeling based on digital image processing,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 148, Article ID 102836, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. C. Zhu, M.-c. He, M. Karakus, X.-h. Zhang, and Z. Guo, “The collision experiment between rolling stones of different shapes and protective cushion in open-pit mines,” Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1391–1403, 2021. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. Q. Yin, J. Y. Wu, C. Zhu, M. C. He, and Q. X. Meng, “Shear mechanical responses of sandstone exposed to high temperature under constant normal stiffness boundary conditions,” Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources, vol. 7, p. 35, 2021. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. Q. Wang, Z. Jiang, B. Jiang, H. Gao, Y. Huang, and P. Zhang, “Research on an automatic roadway formation method in deep mining areas by roof cutting with high-strength bolt-grouting,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 128, Article ID 104264, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Yijun Zhou and Tao Xu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views103
Downloads526
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.