论文部分内容阅读
用二种不同方法:瓦氏圆锥仪法,锥体下沉深度为10mm及17mm,以及卡氏法(ASTM标准),对上海地区第四纪软粘性土的59个试样分别测液限值。试样的液限值自34％至60％。将测试成果用统计方法比较以确定上述二种方法之间的相关关系,给出本文中的回归方程式。根据成果资料的进一步分析,显而易见,圆锥仪液限值与碟式仪液限值相等时的锥体下沉深度(等效下沉深度)是随土的液限值的增大而增大的,并不是接近一常值。对粉质低塑性土,不论用那一种方法均不能得出可信的液限值。
Two different methods were used: the Varsner cone method, the depth of cone sinking of 10mm and 17mm, and the Cartesian method (ASTM standard). The liquid limit values were determined for 59 specimens of the Quaternary soft clay soil in Shanghai. . The liquid limit of the sample is from 34% to 60%. The test results were compared by statistical methods to determine the correlation between the above two methods, and the regression equation in this paper was given. According to the further analysis of the outcome data, it is clear that the cone subsidence depth (equivalent subsidence depth) when the conical instrument liquid limit equals the disc limiter liquid limit value increases with the increase of the soil liquid limit value. Is not close to a constant value. For silty low-plastic soil, no reliable liquid limit can be obtained by either method.