PDF Download

[1]LIU Yabin,WANG Peng,WANG Shu,et al.Mechanical Properties of the Interface Interaction Between Caragana korshinskii Kom. Root and Loess-Like Saline Soil[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2022,29(04):127-132+139.

Copy

Mechanical Properties of the Interface Interaction Between Caragana korshinskii Kom. Root and Loess-Like Saline Soil

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 29 Number of periods: 2022 04 Page number: 127-132+139 Column: Public date: 2022-06-20

Title:: Mechanical Properties of the Interface Interaction Between Caragana korshinskii Kom. Root and Loess-Like Saline Soil

Author(s):: LIU Yabin^1,2,3, WANG Peng², WANG Shu², SHI Chuan², ZHU Haili^2,3, LI Guorong^2,3, HU Xiasong^2,3; (1.Engineering Research Center of Rock-Soil Drilling & Excavation and Protection, Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430074, China; 2.Department of Geological Engineering, Qinghai University, Xining 810016, China; 3.Key Lab of Genozoic Resource & Env. in North Margin of the Tibetan Plateau, Xining 810016, China)

Keywords:: slope protection with vegetation; Xining Basin; saline loess soil; shrub; root-soil interface interaction; maximum pull-out resistance of single root

CLC:: TU43

DOI:: -

Abstract:: In order to improve our knowledge of the mechanical effects of roots of shrub species on soil reinforcement and slope protection in loess region of Xining Basin, the dominant shrub Caragana korshinskii Kom. was selected as the study object, and the effects of the density, moisture content, and salt content of soil, and the root diameter on the friction characteristics of the root-soil interface and their mechanisms were analyzed and discussed via the single root vertical pull-out friction test(i. e., one factor was varied at a time). The results indicate that when the vertical buried depth was 25 cm and other factors are constant, as the density of soil increases from 1.20 g/cm³ to 1.60 g/cm³, the maximum pull-out resistance of C. korshinskii single root exponentially increases from(28.60±2.83)N to(114.33±7.17)N; maximum pull-out resistance exponentially decreases from(152.80±10.07)N to(31.50±5.53)N, as the moisture content of soil increases from 6.00% to 22.00%; as the salt content of soil increases from 0.59% to 2.00%, the maximum pull-out resistance initially increases with salt content of soil and then decreases, and the turning point of the maximum pull-out resistance [(61.20±0.94)N] occurs when the salt content of soil is 1.00%, exhibiting a quadratic relationship; as the average root diameter increases from 2.74 mm to 9.57 mm, the maximum pullout strength linearly increases from 25.20 N to 97.10 N. On these bases, a calculation model of the maximum pull-out resistance of a single vertical root is defined. In addition, the comprehensive cohesion and friction angle between the root-soil interface which requires to calculate the maximum pullout resistance of the vertical single root can be obtained via the direct shear test of the root-soil interface.

References:: [1] Stokes A, Douglas G B, Fourcaud T, et al. Ecological mitigation of hillslope instability: Ten key issues facing researchers and practitioners[J]. Plant and Soil, 2014,377(1):1-23.
[2] 张倬元.滑坡防治工程的现状与发展展望[J].地质灾害与环境保护,2000,11(2):89-97.
[3] Mickovski S B, Bengough A G, Bransby M F, et al. Material stiffness, branching pattern and soil matric potential affect the pullout resistance of model root systems[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2007,58(6):1471-1481.
[4] 周云艳.植物根系固土机理与护坡技术研究[D].武汉:中国地质大学(武汉),2010.
[5] 解明曙.林木根系固坡土力学机制研究[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(3):7-14.
[6] 格日乐,刘艳琦,左志严,等.根系固土主要力学因子的主成分分析[J].内蒙古农业大学学报:自然科学版,2015,36(6):39-47.
[7] Ennos A R. The mechanics of anchorage in seedlings of sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.[J]. New Phytologist, 1989,113(2):185-192.
[8] Zhou Y, Watts D, Li Y, et al. A case study of effect of lateral roots of Pinus yunnanensis on shallow soil reinforcement[J]. Forest Ecology and Management,1998,103(2):107-120.
[9] 刘跃明,张云伟,周跃.侧根的根土粘合键模型及牵引效应测试系统[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2003,27(1):50-54.
[10] 邢会文.4种植物根-土界面摩阻特性研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2009.
[11] 刘亚斌,胡夏嵩,余冬梅,等.西宁盆地黄土区2种灌木植物根-土界面微观结构特征及摩擦特性试验[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2018,37(5):1270-1280.
[12] 宋维峰,陈丽华,刘秀萍.根系与土体接触面相互作用特性试验[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(2):62-65.
[13] 格日乐,刘艳琦,左志严,等.土壤水分对植物根-土界面相互作用特性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(1):135-140.
[14] 邢会文,刘静,王林和,等.柠条、沙柳根与土及土与土界面摩擦特性[J].摩擦学学报,2010,30(1):88-91.
[15] 苏禹,刘静,李昊,等.土壤饱和度对柠条根与两类土界面摩擦特性的影响[J].内蒙古林业科技,2017,43(2):1-5.
[16] 曹云生,陈丽华,刘小光,等.植物根土界面摩擦力的影响因素研究[J].摩擦学学报,2014,34(5):482-488.
[17] 刘小光,冀晓东,赵红华,等.油松根系与土壤摩擦性能研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2012,34(6):63-67.
[18] 郑力文,刘小光,涂志华,等.土壤含水率与干密度对油松根-土界面摩擦性能的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2014,12(6):36-41.
[19] Schwarz M, Cohen D, Or D. Root-soil mechanical interactions during pullout and failure of root bundles[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface,2010,115.DOI:10.1029/2009JF001603.
[20] 鹿化煜,王先彦, Vandenberghe Jef.青藏高原东北部地貌演化与隆升[J].自然杂志,2014,36(3):176-181.
[21] 罗友弟.青海地区盐渍土分布规律及其盐胀溶陷机制探讨[J].水文地质工程地质,2010,37(4):116-120.
[22] 孙毅.西宁市黄土滑坡发育特征及稳定性分析:以小酉山滑坡为例[D].西安:长安大学,2013.
[23] 刘亚斌,李淑霞,余冬梅,等.西宁盆地黄土区典型草本植物单根抗拉力学特性试验[J].农业工程学报,2018,34(15):157-166.
[24] 胡夏嵩,李国荣,朱海丽,等.寒旱环境灌木植物根-土相互作用及其护坡力学效应[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2009,28(3):613-620.
[25] 周林虎,胡夏嵩,刘昌义,等.西宁盆地黄土区4种灌木原位拉拔试验[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(5):236-242.
[26] 牛西午,丁玉川,张强,等.柠条根系发育特征及有关生理特性研究[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(5):860-865.
[27] 谢蕾蕾,宋志刚,何旭洪.SPSS统计分析实用教程[M].北京:人民邮电出版社,2013.
[28] 李东嵘.黄土区紫花苜蓿与沙棘根系拉拔受力机理研究[D].太原:太原理工大学,2020.
[29] 张兴玲,胡夏嵩,毛小青,等.青藏高原东北部黄土区护坡灌木柠条锦鸡儿根系拉拔摩擦试验研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2011,30(S2):3739-3745.
[30] 周霞.黄土区紫花苜蓿根土复合体摩擦锚固试验研究[D].太原:太原理工大学,2019.
[31] 杨闻达,王桂尧,常婧美,等.主直根系拉拔力的室内试验研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2017,15(4):111-116.
[32] 汤连生,王思敬.湿吸力及非饱和土的有效应力原理探讨[J].岩土工程学报,2000,22(1):86-91.
[33] 李广信.高等土力学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[34] 汤连生.黄土湿陷性的微结构不平衡吸力成因论[J].工程地质学报,2003,11(1):30-35.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2022-06-20