臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於傳統砂錐法或橡皮膜法取樣及相關量測程序較為繁瑣，因此研究之目的在於開發貫入試驗法安全快速有效檢測土壤工地密度。新開發之裝置為縮小貫入頭尺寸，直徑為6mm且有尖頭與平頭可替換，以打擊一次所貫入之深度來評估土壤工地密度，如此可減少重覆打擊次數，加快檢測速度。
本研究所使用之三種試驗材料分別為湖山水庫湖南壩壩體1a心層料與殼層料以及白水溪河堤填築料，以三種不同含水量(OMC、OMC+2%及OMC-2%)進行試驗。在實驗室中取得貫入深度與夯實度率定關係曲線，再於壩堤現場驗證率定結果。研究結果顯示利用尖頭或平頭貫入深度可評估土壤工地密度及輾壓之均勻性，用兩種貫入頭貫入深度差關係，可評估現場之含水狀況(偏乾側或偏濕側)，本研究提供判斷工地壓實土層之品質之新的快速檢測法。

The measuring procedures of the traditional sand cone method or rubber balloon membrane sampling method are complicated and time consuming. Present research is focus on developing a penetration test technique for rapid evaluation of field soil density. A newly development device with reduced penetration head size, a diameter of 6mm, and replaceable pointed and flat heads was designed to assess field soil density with the penetrated depth of one impact. As a result, the experimental time is shorter than traditional methods.

Three kinds of test materials obtaining from the core and shell layers of Hushan Reservoir dam embankment and the embankment back-fill material of White-water River were used for this study. The specimens were tested with three different moisture contents-optimum moisture content (OMC), OMC +2% and OMC-2%. The calibrated relations between the penetrated depth and Relative Compaction of the soils were established in lab. The calibration results were then verified on the sites of dam embankment and river embankment. The results showed that the Relative Compaction and the uniformity of the soil can be the estimated by the penetrated depth of flat or pointed head with good accuracy. The difference between the penetrated depth of the pointed head and the flat head can evaluate the moisture condition of the soil, dry side or wet side of OMC. The research provide a new technique to determine whether the sites meet the quality of soil compaction specifications.

目錄
中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 前言 1
1.2 研究動機與目的 2
1.3 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1土壤分類 4
2.1.1含水量試驗 4
2.1.2土粒比重試驗 4
2.1.3阿太堡限度與指數之試驗 4
2.1.4土壤粒徑分析試驗 5
2.1.5統一土壤分類法 6
2.2土壤之夯實 7
2.2.1夯實定義及目的 7
2.2.2土壤最大乾密度及最佳含水量量測之基本原理 8
2.3傳統工地密度試驗 9
2.4貫入試驗 12
2.4.1貫入試驗儀器之型式 15
2.4.2標準貫入試驗(Standard Penetration Test, SPT) 16
2.4.3圓錐貫入試驗(Cone Penetration Test, CPT) 17
2.4.4動態圓錐貫入試驗(Dynamic Cone Penetration Test, DCPT) 18
第三章 試驗規劃及儀器設備 21
3.1試驗材料 21
3.2試驗內容及方法 21
3.2.1 試驗方法與儀器設備 21
3.3試體規劃 23
3.3.1試驗材料之準備 24
3.3.2試驗材料之夯實 24
3.4試驗步驟 25
3.4.1貫入試驗步驟 25
3.4.2工地密度試驗步驟 26
第四章 試驗分析結果與討論 28
4.1 一般物理性質試驗 28
4.2 夯實試驗 28
4.3 實驗室落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗 29
4.3.1 湖山水庫1a心層料檢測結果 29
4.3.2 湖山水庫壩體殼層料檢測結果 32
4.3.3白水溪河堤填築料檢測結果 34
第五章 現場檢測結果與討論 37
5.1 夯實試驗 37
5.2 試驗步驟 37
5.3 現場落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗 38
5.3.1 湖山水庫1a心層料檢測結果 38
5.3.2 湖山水庫壩體殼層料檢測結果 40
5.3.3 白水溪河堤填築料檢測結果 41
5.4 試驗與現場結果之比較 43
5.4.1 湖山水庫1a心層料檢測結果 43
5.4.2 湖山水庫壩體殼層料檢測結果 43
5.4.3 白水溪河堤填築料檢測結果 44
第六章 結論與建議 45
6.1 結論 45
6.2 建議 46

表目錄
表2-1 標準及修正夯實試驗之比較 51
表2-2 貫入針試驗之特點【27】 51
表4-1 三種試驗材料一般土壤物理性質試驗結果 51
表4-2 試驗夯實度與密度關係表(1a心層料) 52
表4-3 試驗夯實度與密度關係表(殼層料) 53
表4-4 試驗夯實度與密度關係表(白水溪河堤填築料) 54
表4-5 湖山水庫1a心層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗同區域平均貫入深度、標準差及變異係數 55
表4-6 湖山水庫1a心層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定試驗結果 56
表4-7 湖山水庫殻層落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗同區域平均貫入深度、標準差及變異係數 57
表4-8 湖山水庫殻層落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定試驗結果 58
表4-9 白水溪河堤填築料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗同區域平均貫入深度、標準差及變異係數 59
表4-10 白水溪河堤填築料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定試驗結果 60
表5-1 現場之湖山水庫心層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗貫入深度、含水量、標準差及變異係數 61
表5-2 現場之湖山水庫殻層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗貫入深度、含水量、標準差及變異係數 61
表5-3 現場之白水溪河堤填築料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗貫入深度、含水量、標準差及變異係數 61

圖目錄
圖1-1 研究流程圖 62
圖2-1 含水量與土壤體積變化關係【1】 63
圖2-2 塑性圖表【1】 63
圖2-3 統一土壤分類法分類流程圖【1】 64
圖2-4 土壤之夯實曲線【2】 65
圖2-5 同一種土壤經高能量與低能量夯實後之結果比較【2】 65
圖2-6 機械式圓錐貫入儀(Dutch Mantle Cone)之示意圖 66
圖2-7 典型之動態圓錐貫入儀之尺寸 66
圖2-8 動態圓錐貫入試驗示意圖 67
圖2-9 動態圓錐貫入儀之尺寸(ASTM D 7380) 67
圖2-10 動態圓錐貫入儀之率定曲線(ASTM D 7380) 68
圖3-1 各種貫入試驗法之貫入頭演變示意圖 68
圖3-2 本研究開發貫入試驗法之貫入頭尺寸示意圖 69
圖3-3 含水量試驗所需設備 69
圖3-4 比重試驗所需設備 69
圖3-5 粒徑分佈試驗所需設備 70
圖3-6 液、塑限試驗所需設備 70
圖3-7 標準與修正夯實試驗所需設備 70
圖3-8 落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗設備 71
圖3-9 鎚式縮小貫入頭上方之水平氣泡 71
圖3-10 工地密度試驗儀器設備 72
圖3-11 600mm×600mm×305mm之校正箱與夯實機具 72
圖3-12 利用噴霧氣均勻噴灑水分 73
圖3-13 利用攪拌器攪拌試驗材料 73
圖3-14 土壤分四層夯實(需過篩) 73
圖3-15 夯實前整平施作照片 74
圖3-16 利用重力式落鎚將土壤整平，再以順時針分向進行夯壓 74
圖3-17 貫入頭擊入土層之示意圖 74
圖3-18 落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗施作照片 75
圖3-19 參考平台量測貫入深度示意圖(左邊為平頭，右邊為尖頭) 75
圖3-20 砂錐法工地密度試驗施作過程 76
圖4-1 湖山水庫壩體1a心層料標準與修正夯實試驗結果 76
圖4-2 湖山水庫壩體殼層料標準與修正夯實試驗結果 76
圖4-3 白水溪河堤填築料標準與修正夯實試驗結果 77
圖4-4 心層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC+2%)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 78
圖4-5 心層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 79
圖4-6 心層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC-2%)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 80
圖4-7 綜合三種含水量下心層料落鎚式縮小貫入率定曲線：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 81
圖4-8 心層料同夯實條件下所有分區平頭貫入深度與尖頭貫入深度的關係 82
圖 4-9 心層料之尖頭與平頭貫入深度差與相對夯實密度關係圖 82
圖4-10 心層料之尖頭與平頭貫入深度差與含水量關係圖 83
圖4-11 殻層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC+2%)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 84
圖4-12 殻層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 85
圖4-13 殻層料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC-2%)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 86
圖4-14 綜合三種含水量下殼層料落鎚式縮小貫入率定曲線：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 87
圖4-15 殻層料同夯實條件下所有分區平頭貫入深度與尖頭貫入深度的關係 88
圖4-16 殼層料之尖頭與平頭貫入深度差與相對夯實密度關係圖 88
圖4-17 殼層料之尖頭與平頭貫入深度差與含水量關係圖 89
圖4-18 河堤料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC+2%)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 90
圖4-19 河堤料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 91
圖4-20 河堤料落鎚式縮小貫入頭試驗率定曲線(ω=OMC-2%)：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 92
圖4-21 綜合三種含水量下河堤料落鎚式縮小貫入率定曲線：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 93
圖4-22 河堤填築料同夯實條件下所有分區平頭貫入深度與尖頭貫入深度的關係 94
圖4-23 河堤填築料之尖頭與平頭貫入深度差與相對夯實密度關係圖 94
圖4-24 河堤填築料之尖頭與平頭貫入深度差與含水量關係圖 95
圖5-1 現場所使用之灑水車 95
圖5-2 現場將土壤與水分攪拌均勻之翻土機 96
圖5-3 現場所使用夯實機具之羊腳滾輾壓機 96
圖5-4 現場所使用夯實機具之凸角滾輾壓機 97
圖5-5 現場所使用夯實機具之震動鋼輪輾壓機 97
圖5-6 現場貫入試驗施作照片 98
圖5-7 現場貫入深度量測照片 98
圖5-8 現場工地密度試驗施作照片 99
圖5-9 現場工地密度試驗之照片 99
圖5-10 心層料之尖頭貫入深度與平頭貫入深度差與含水量關係圖 100
圖5-11 心層料之尖頭貫入深度與平頭貫入深度差與相對夯實密度關係圖 100
圖5-12 殼層料之尖頭貫入深度與平頭貫入深度差與含水量關係圖 101
圖5-13 殼層料之尖頭貫入深度與平頭貫入深度差與相對夯實密度關係圖 101
圖5-14 河堤填築料之尖頭貫入深度與平頭貫入深度差與含水量關係圖 102
圖5-15 河堤填築料之尖頭貫入深度與平頭貫入深度差與相對夯實密度關係圖 102
圖5-16 綜合三種含水量下心層料落鎚式縮小貫入率定曲線與現場值之關係：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 103
圖5-17 綜合三種含水量下殼層料落鎚式縮小貫入率定曲線與現場值之關係：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 104
圖5-18 綜合三種含水量下河堤填築料落鎚式縮小貫入率定曲線與現場值之關係：(a)尖頭; (b)平頭 105

1.施國欽，「大地工程學(一) 土壤力學篇」，文笙書局，第2-22頁、第2-30頁及第2-41頁，(1996)。
2.沈茂松，「實用土壤力學試驗」，增訂第八版，文笙書局，第197頁，(1988)。
3.ASTM (2007), “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D-698-07e1, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA.
4.ASTM (2007), “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D-1557-07, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA.
5.ASTM (2007), “Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D-1556-07, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA.
6.ASTM (2008), “Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Rubber Balloon Method,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D-2167-08, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA.
7.沈茂松，「實用土壤力學試驗」，增訂第五版，文笙書局，第208頁，(1988)。
8.ASTM (2008), “Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D-6938-08a, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA.
9.McCarthy, D.F. (1998), “Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations – Basic Geotechnics,” 5th Ed., Prentice Hall Inc., NJ.
10.Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., and Annan, A.P. (1980), “Electromagnetic Determination of Soil Water Content: Measurements in Coaxial Transmission Lines,” Water Resource Reservation, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 574-582.
11.Benson, C.H. and Bosscher, P.J. (1999), “Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) in Geotechnics: A Review, Nondestructive and Automated Testing for Soil and Rock Properties,” ASTM SPT 1350, West Conshohocken, PA.
12.Noborio, K. (2001), “Measurement of Soil Water Content and Electric Conductivity by Time Domain Reflectometry: a Review,” Computational Electronic Agriculture, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 213-237.
13.Siddiqui, S.I. and Drnevich, V.P. (1995), “A New Method of Measuring Water Content and Density of Soil using the Technique of Time Domain Reflectometry,” Rep. No.:FHWA/JTRP-95/9, Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation – Purdue University.
14.ASTM (2003), “Standard Test Methods for Water Content and Density of Soil in Place by Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR),” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D-6780-05, Vol. 04.09, West Conshohocken, PA.
15.Yu, X., and Drnevich, V.P. (2004), “Soil Water Content and Dry Density by Time Domain Reflectometry,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.130, No. 9, pp.922-934.
16.Baver, L.D., W.H. Gardner, and W.R. Gardner., 1972, “Soil physics,” 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
17.de Reister, J., 1971, “Electric Penetrometer for Site Investigations”; Journal of SMFE Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, SM-2, pp. 457-472.
18.ASTM, (2005), "Standard Method of Deep Quasi-Static Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil"; ASTM Standard D 3441-05, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 7 pp.
19.ASTM, (2007), "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils," ASTM Standard D 5778-07, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 19 pp.
20.Campbell, D.J., and R. Hunter, 1986, “Drop-cone Penetration in Situ on Minimally Disturbed Soil Cores,” J. Soil Sci., Vol.37, pp.153-163.
21.Godwin, R.J., N.L. Warner, and D.L.O. Smith, 1991, “The Development of a Dynamic Drop-cone Device for the Assessment of Soil Strength and the Effects of Machinery Traffic,” J. Agric. Eng. Res., Vol.48, pp.123-131.
22.Todres, A., 1987, “An Experimental Program for Soil Compaction Verification,” Report No. 40239, Institute of Gas Technology.
23.Herrick, J.E. and T.L. Jones, 2002, “A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Measuring Soil Penetration Resistance,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., Vol.66, p. 1320-1324.
24.ASAE Standard EP542, 1999, “Procedures for Using and Reporting Data Obtained with the Soil Cone Penetrometer,” ASAE, the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St Joseph, MI.
25.ASTM, (2003), "Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications," ASTM Standard D 6951-03, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 7 pp.
26.ASTM, (2008), "Standard Method for Soil Compaction Dtermination at Shallow Depths Using 5-lb (2.3 kg) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer"; ASTM Standard D 7380-08, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 8 pp.
27.Cement and Concrete Research 39 (2009) 401–408
28.劉賢淋，「大地工程學(一)」，天佑出版社，第5-59~5-60頁，1994。
29.Livneh, M, Ishai, I. and Livneh, N. A. (1994), “Effect of Vertical Confinement on Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Values in Pavement and Subgrade Evaluations,” Transportation Research Record 1473, p. 1-8.
30.Harison, A. (1987), “Correlation between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils,” Proc. Instn Civ. Engrg, Part2 p. 832-844.
31.Ayers, M. E., Thompson, M.R. and Uzarski, D. R. (1989), “Rapid Shear Strength Evaluationof in situ Granular Materials,” Transportation Research Record 1227, p. 134-146.