Impact of brine on physical properties of saline soils

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1226.2021.21038.

Abstract

Abstract:

Engineering activities in the salt lake region continue to increase where fresh water resources are scarce. This paper investigates the physical properties of saline soils during mixing with brine. Fine-grained saline soils with salt content varying from 2.6% to 78.5% were collected along Qarhan-Golmud Highway (QGH) and Sebei-Qarhan Highway (SQH) on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to conduct laboratory physical properties tests. Liquid plastic limit tests were conducted. Results show that liquid plastic limit parameters will decrease with an increase of salt content ranging from 2.6% to 78.5%, and the relationship between them is linear. After considering the content ratio of chloride and sulfate, results show that liquid plastic limit parameters will decrease with an increase of the ratio of chloride to sulfate ranging from 0.7% to 7.0%; liquid plastic limit parameters enter a stable period at the ratio of chloride to sulfate ranging from 7.0% to 37.4%; liquid plastic limit parameters enter a decline period at the ratio of chloride to sulfate ranging from 37.4% to 77.2%. After brine and fresh water are separately mixed into saline soil, the optimal moisture content of the soil samples after the brine action is lower than the saline soil under the action of fresh water, and the maximum dry density of the soil sample is higher than that under the action of fresh water. At the same time, these changing laws show a certain correlation with the chloride ion content and the ratio of chloride to sulfate in saline soils. The results are of significance for engineering activities in salt lake regions with extensive saline soil distribution.

Key words: saline soil, brine, physical properties, the ratio of chloride to sulfate

Yu Zhang,Jie Liu,AnHua Xu,JianKun Liu,ZhaoHui Yang,JianHong Fang. Impact of brine on physical properties of saline soils[J].Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2021, 13(5): 430-439.

Figures/Tables 30

Figure 1

Table 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Table 2

Figure 4

Table 3

Figure 5

Table 4

Parameters list"

y	x	$a ω l, ω p s a l$	$b ω l, ω p s a l$	R²
Liquid limit	Salt content	-0.476	42.0	0.92
Plastic limit		-0.354	28.7	0.97
Plasticity index		-0.122	13.4	0.78

Table 4

Figure 6

Table 5

Parameters list"

y	x	$a ω l, ω p c h l$	$a ω l, ω p c h l$	R²
Liquid limit	Chloride ions	-0.724	39.7	0.96
Plastic limit		-0.540	26.4	0.96
Plasticity index		-0.184	13.3	0.90

Table 5

Figure 7

Table 6

Parameters list"

y	x (0.74≤x<7.03)	$a ω l, ω p r a t$	$b ω l, ω p r a t$	R²
Liquid limit	The ratio of chloride to sulfate	-2.369	44.1	0.99
Plastic limit		-1.536	28.8	0.99
Plasticity index		-0.843	15.3	0.97

Table 6

Table 7

Parameters list"

y	x (7.03≤x<37.35)	$a ω l, ω p r a t$	$b ω l, ω p r a t$	R²
Liquid limit	The ratio of chloride to sulfate	-0.018	27.9	0.87
Plastic limit		-0.012	18.2	0.97
Plasticity index		-0.006	9.7	0.97

Table 7

Table 8

Parameters list"

y	x (37.35≤x≤77.15)	$a ω l, ω p r a t$	$b ω l, ω p r a t$	R²
Liquid limit	The ratio of chloride to sulfate	-0.442	43.7	0.89
Plastic limit		-0.358	33.1	0.77
Plasticity index		-0.084	10.6	0.68

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Parameters list"

Conditions	y	x	$a o p t s a l$	$b o p t s a l$	R²
Water	The optimal moisture content	Salt content	-16.592	34.5	0.96
Brine	The optimal moisture content	Salt content	-12.190	25.9	0.87

Table 10

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Table 11

Parameters list"

y	x	$a o p t c h l$	$b o p t c h l$	R²
The optimal moisture content	The content of chloride ions (3.22≤x<18.83)	-0.824	20.9	0.99
The optimal moisture content	The content of chloride ions (18.83≤x≤47.16)	-0.132	8.7	0.74

Table 11

Table 12

Parameters list"

y	x	$a o p t r a t$	$b o p t r a t$	R²
The optimal moisture content	The ratio of chloride to sulfate	-0.220	16.7	0.81

Table 12

Table 13

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Table 14

Parameters list"

Conditions	y	x	$a m a x s a l$	$b m a x s a l$	R²
Water	The maximum dry density	Salt content (2.59≤x≤78.50)	0.007	1.4	0.97
Water		Salt content (2.59≤x<36.10)	0.008	1.7	0.93
Brine		Salt content (36.10≤x<64.41)	-0.0003	1.9	0.97
Brine		Salt content (64.41≤x≤78.50)	0.011	1.3	0.99

Table 14

Table 15

Parameters list"

y	x	$a m a x c h l$	$b m a x c h l$	R²
The maximum dry density	The content of chloride ions (3.22≤x<18.83)	0.013	1.7	0.75
	The content of chloride ions (18.83≤x<39.16)	0.002	1.9	0.96
	The content of chloride ions (39.16≤x≤47.16)	0.019	1.2	0.98

Table 15

Table 16

Parameters list"

y	x	$a m a x r a t$	$b m a x r a t$	R²
The maximum dry density	The ratio of chloride to sulfate (4.13≤x<35.00)	0.006	1.7	0.62
	The ratio of chloride to sulfate (35.00≤x<59.09)	-0.002	2.0	0.92
	The ratio of chloride to sulfate (59.09≤x≤77.85)	0.013	1.1	1.00

Table 16

Table 17

Parameters list"

z	x	y	$a m a x c o n$	$b m a x c o n$	$c m a x c o n c e n$	$d m a x c o n c e n$
The maximum dry density (g/cm³)	The salt content (%)	The concentration (%)	4×10^-5	0.0028	10^-6	1.5298

Table 17

References 0

	Bao WX, Zhang SS, 2016. Experimental study on salt expansion and thawing subsidence properties of sandy saline soil. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 38(04): 734-739. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201604019. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201604019
	Chen ZJ, A SS, 2019. Analysis of the influence of salt content on the stability of slope of road subgrade with saline soil. Qinghai science and technology, 26(02): 42-45. DOI: CNKI:SUN:QKKJ.0.2019-02-010. doi: CNKI:SUN:QKKJ.0.2019-02-010
	Deng B, 2020. Expansion property analysis of saline soils combined with Brine. Shandong Jiaotong Science and Technology, (05): 29-32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8942.2020.05.008. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8942.2020.05.008
	Ding ZY, Chen XG, 2018. Study on seasonal variation of salt in saline soil in western Jilin province. Water Conservancy Planning and Design, (09): 104-106+116. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2469.2018.09.030. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2469.2018.09.030
	Feng RL, Cai XY, Wu LJ, et al., 2017. Theoretical model on coupling process of moisture-salt-heat-stress field in sulfate salty soil. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 30(02): 1-10+40. DOI: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2017.02.001. doi: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2017.02.001
	Hu HJ, Duan XL, He ZM, et al., 2018. Mechanical properties and meso mechanical performance evaluation of coarse-grained soil fillers based on dynamic triaxial CT test. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 31(11): 42-50. DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZGGL.0.2018-11-006. doi: CNKI:SUN:ZGGL.0.2018-11-006
	JTG3430-2020, 2020. Test Methods of Soils for Highway Engineering. China, P.R. Ministry of Communications. China Communications Press, Beijing.
	Li M, Chai SX, Du HP, et al., 2016. Effect of chlorine salt on the physical and mechanical properties of inshore saline soil treated with lime. Soils and Foundations, 56(3): 327-335. DOI: 10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.001. doi: 10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.001
	Li JY, Zhang AQ, Shan W, 2017. Method for determining the compactness of low liquid limit clay subgrade based on simple penetration test. Journal of Central South University: Natural Science, 48(10): 2732-2737. DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2017.10.024. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2017.10.024
	Liang JW, Fang YG, Chen S, 2009. Experimental research on effect of salt content on strength of tiny-particle clay. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 28(S2): 3821-3829. DOI: JournalArticle/5af4e43dc095d718d81ed7f2. doi: JournalArticle/5af4e43dc095d718d81ed7f2
	Liu HL, Zhao MH, 2016. Review of ground improvement technical and its application in China. Journal of Civil Engineering, 49(01): 96-115. DOI: 10.15951/j.tmgcxb.2016.01.012. doi: 10.15951/j.tmgcxb.2016.01.012
	Wang YF, Weng XZ, Zhang RY, et al., 2015. Permeating-chemical grouting treatment method of sulphate saline soil. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 15(06): 10-16+25. DOI: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2015.06.002. doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2015.06.002
	Wen T, Mi HZ, Yang P, et al., 2015. An experimental study of the compaction characteristics of sulfate saline soil. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 36(07): 1945-1952. DOI: 10.16285/j.rsm.2015.07.015. doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2015.07.015
	Xi RS, 2016. Effect of salt content on mechanical properties of saline soil. Railway Architecture, (10): 86-88. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1995.2016.10.23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1995.2016.10.23
	Yang XH, Wang YW, Zhang SS, 2016. Research on changing rules of salt expansion rate of salty soil with water content based on regulation factor. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 29(10): 12-19. DOI: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2016.10.002. doi: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2016.10.002
	Yang P, Cao YP, Zhu YP, et al., 2019. Model test of salt-frost heaving limit depth of coarse-grained sulphate saline soil. Engineering Science and Technology, 51(01): 129-136. DOI: 10.15961/j.jsuese.201800098. doi: 10.15961/j.jsuese.201800098
	Yue HM, Huang JM, Wen T, et al., 2017. Experimental study of foundation treatment of sulphate saline sandy soil using heavy cover replacement technique. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 38(02): 471-478 +486. DOI: 10.16285/j.rsm.2017.02.021. doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2017.02.021
	Zhang SS, Wang YW, Yang XH, et al., 2015. Simplified prediction model of salt expansion rate for gravel sulfite saline soil. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 28(11): 1-7+14. DOI: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2015.11.001. doi: 10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2015.11.001
	Zhang SS, Xie SJ, Yang XH, et al., 2019. Action mechanism of coarse particle sulfate soil subgrade modified by volcanic ash. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 41(03): 588-594. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201903023. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201903023
	Zhang TW, Deng YF, Wu ZL, et al., 2018. Engineering behavior and constitutive model of artificial soft clay considering pore water salinity effect. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 40(09): 1690-1697. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201809016. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201809016
	Zhang XM, Lu YZ, Dong Q, et al., 2015. Evaluating compaction quality of soil-rock mixture based on theory of elastic waves. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 37(11): 2051-2057. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201511016. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201511016
	Zhao DA, Yu YY, Ma HM, et al., 2014. Secondary salinization of subgrade of southern Xinjiang Railway. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 36(04): 745-751. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201404020. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201404020

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

Ion species	Content	Ion species	Content
CO₃^2-	0.046%	Mg²⁺	1.459%
HCO₃^-	0.033%	SO₄^2-	1.114%
Cl^-	19.254%	Na⁺	7.136%
Ca²⁺	0.762%	Total salt content	30.968%
K⁺	1.211%

Soil samples	Sampling location and mileage	Salt content								Total salt content	Cl^-/SO₄^2-
Soil samples	Sampling location and mileage	CO₃^2-	HCO₃^-	Cl^-	SO₄^2-	K⁺	Na⁺	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Total salt content	Cl^-/SO₄^2-
MLSt-1	QGH-K642 + 200	0.00%	0.16%	0.43%	0.58%	0.02%	0.35%	0.30%	0.24%	2.59%	0.740
MLSt-2	QGH-K636 + 000	0.00%	0.02%	2.04%	1.10%	0.06%	1.32%	0.95%	0.10%	8.80%	1.849
MLSt-3	QGH-K636 + 000	0.00%	0.01%	3.37%	1.49%	0.08%	1.62%	0.70%	0.24%	11.88%	2.267
CLSt-1	QGH-K602 + 750	0.00%	0.03%	14.73%	0.48%	0.13%	6.73%	0.60%	1.34%	25.40%	30.69
SPSt-1	SQH-K113 + 832	0.01%	0.05%	17.95%	0.32%	0.06%	11.16%	0.22%	0.20%	29.97%	56.09
CLSt-2	QGH-K603 + 300	0.00%	0.01%	3.37%	2.40%	0.14%	10.35%	0.80%	0.79%	35.06%	7.025
CLSt-3	QGH-K603 + 260	0.03%	0.13%	17.93%	0.48%	0.12%	9.69%	0.60%	0.98%	36.12%	37.35
SFSt-1	SQH-K151+187.6	0.03%	0.03%	37.75%	0.75%	1.88%	18.28%	0.35%	2.70%	61.77%	50.33
SFSt-2	SQH-K153 + 997.6	0.05%	0.05%	38.95%	1.13%	3.54%	16.83%	0.48%	3.38%	64.41%	34.45
SPSt-2	SQH-K102 + 800	0.02%	0.03%	47.06%	0.61%	0.16%	30.25%	0.28%	0.10%	78.50%	77.15

Soil samples	Liquid limit	Plastic limit	Plasticity index	Nonuniform coefficient
MLSt-1	42.1%	27.3%	14.8	14.7
MLSt-2	39.5%	25.6%	13.9	12.5
MLSt-3	38.7%	25.4%	13.3	13.3
CLSt-1	28.5%	18.2%	10.3	10.7
SPSt-1	20.5%	17.4%	3.1	4.8
CLSt-2	26.8%	18.0%	8.8	7.8
CLSt-3	26.3%	17.4%	8.9	13.3
SFSt-1	11.0%	4.1%	6.9	8.0
SFSt-2	9.2%	5.5%	3.7	9.9
SPSt-2	9.2%	2.6%	6.6	5.5

Soil samples	Optimal moisture content	Maximum dry density (g/cm³)
MLSt-1	17.90%	1.66
MLSt-2	16.80%	1.73
MLSt-3	16.70%	1.77
CLSt-1	8.20%	1.83
SPSt-1	5.20%	1.84
CLSt-2	7.00%	1.92
CLSt-3	7.20%	1.96
SFSt-1	4.49%	1.91
SFSt-2	3.20%	1.95
SPSt-2	2.25%	2.09

Soil samples	Optimal moisture content	Maximum dry density (g/cm³)
SPSt-2	3.63%	2.00
SPSt-1	8.30%	1.65
SFSt-1	4.57%	1.84
SFSt-2	5.00%	1.90
CLSt-1	17.5%	1.56