‫دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ طﯿﻨﯿﺔ اﻧﺘﻔﺎﺧﯿﺔ‬

‫اﻧﺲ ﻓﺨﺮي ﻗﺎﺻﺪ‬ ‫ﺧﻮﻟﺔ اﺣﻤﺪ اﻟﺠﻮاري‬ ‫إﺑﺮاھﯿﻢ ﻣﺤﻤﻮد اﻟﻜﯿﻜﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺴﯿﻦ اﻟﺒﯿﺎﺗﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺪرس ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﺪرس ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﺪرس ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬ ‫أﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬

‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻞ‪ -‬ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺨ‬ ‫(‬ ‫)ا‬
‫اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ طﯿﻨﯿﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﯿﺔ اﻟﻠﺪوﻧﺔ )‪ (CH‬ﻣﺨﺘﺎرة ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﯾﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻞ‪.‬‬
‫أظﮭﺮت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ أن وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨ ﻟ ﻠﺮص‬
‫‪ .‬إن‬ ‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﯿﻦ وﺟﺪ‬
‫)‪(ć, ǿ‬‬ ‫ا‬
‫اﻟﻜﺎﻟﯿﻔﻮرﯾﻨﻲ )‪ (CBR‬ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻟﻠﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‬
‫إن‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟ ﻠﺮص ا‬
‫ﻀﻤﺎم )‪ (cv‬ﻟﻠ ﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟ ﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‬
‫اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط )‪ (cc‬وﻣﻌ ﺎ ﻣﻞ اﻻ ﻧ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﯿﻦ إن ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﻨﻔﺎذﯾﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ اﻗﻞ ﻣﻨﮫ ﻟﻠﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (Pinhole test‬إن‬
‫‪.‬‬
‫وﺟﺪ ﻣﻦ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ ورق اﻟﺘﺮﺷﯿﺢ وﻣﻨﺤﻨﯿﺎت ﺧﺎﺻﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪-‬‬
‫‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص‪.‬‬
‫‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﮭﯿﺪروﻟﯿﻜﯿﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪Studying The Influence Of Compacting Method On The Engineering‬‬

‫‪Properties Of Expansive Clayey Soil‬‬

‫‪Ali H. Al-‬‬ ‫‪Ibrahim M. Al-‬‬ ‫‪Khawla A. Al-‬‬ ‫‪Anas F.‬‬

‫‪Bayati‬‬ ‫‪Kiki‬‬ ‫‪Juari‬‬ ‫‪Qassid‬‬

‫‪College of Engineering – University of Mosul‬‬

‫‪Abstract‬‬
‫‪This study deals with the effect of two methods of compaction‬‬
‫‪(static compaction (S.C.) and dynamic compaction (D.C.)), on the‬‬
engineering properties of high plasticity clayey soil (CH) selected from
Mosul city.
Results showed that maximum dry density of soil compacted by
static method is higher than that compacted by dynamic method. But the
inverse was obtained for optimum moisture content. Unconfined
compressive strength, effective shear strength parameters (ć, ǿ), splitting
and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for soil compacted by dynamic
method has higher values than that compacted by static method.
Swelling pressure and free swell tests gave higher values under
static compaction method. But the values of compression index and
coefficient of consolidation using dynamic compaction method gave
higher values.
On the other hand, the results of crumb, slackening and pinhole
tests showed that the internal erosion of soil compacted by dynamic
method are less than that compacted by static method. From filter paper
method and soil water characteristic curves showed that compaction
methods had no effect on soil suction. Finally, statistical models between
engineering properties for soil compacting by two methods were
obtained.

2007/11/27 ‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﻲ‬ 2005/5/30 ‫أﺳﺘﻠﻢ ﻓﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬ -1
‫ ﻓﺎن ﻣﻦ‬،‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ وﺗﻨﻔﯿﺬ أي ﻣﺸﺮوع ھﻨﺪﺳﻲ وﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﯾﻊ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ اﻟﻜﺒﯿﺮة‬
‫واﻟﺪﻓﻦ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻋ ﻤﺎل اﻟ‬

‫ ﻛﻤﺎ ان طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﺗ‬. ‫اﻟﺮص ﻣﻦ اﻻﻣﻮر اﻟﻤﮭﻤﺔ واﻟﻀﺮورﯾﺔ‬

‫وا ﻟﻄﺮق واﻟ ﺴﺪود‬
‫اﺋﻖ‬ ‫ى طﺮ اﺋ‬ .
‫اﻷﺧﺮى‬
.[11]،[10] ‫واﻗﺘﺼﺎدﯾﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ طﻮل ﻋﻤﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺄ‬

‫ ﺗﺘﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺮص ﺑﺘﺴﻠﯿﻂ‬.‫ﺗﺤﺴﯿﻦ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﮭﺎ وﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﺎ ﯾﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻘﻮة اﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ واﻟﻨﻔﺎذﯾﺔ وﻏﯿﺮھﺎ‬

.
‫اﻟﻄﺮ اﺋ‬
‫ اﻣﺎ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﻓﯿﺘﻀﻤﻦ‬.‫اﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎت ﺑﻤﻄﺎرق ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﻜﻤﯿﺔ اﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺮص‬
.[9] ‫ﺗﻌﺮﯾﺾ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻰ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺳﺎﻛﻦ وذو ﻗﯿﻤﺔ ﻣﺤﺪدة وھﻲ داﺧﻞ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ اﻟﺮص‬
( ) ‫ان ﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ ﻛﺒﯿﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ ﺑﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
.
Seed and
Chain [16]
Olsen and ‫ و‬Attom et al [5] ‫ ﻛﻤﺎ أﺟﺮى‬.‫اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ وﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر‬
Mesri [14]
‫ ذﻛﺮا إن ﺑﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺗﻠﻌﺐ دورا رﺋﯿﺴﯿﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ‬Todd [20]‫ و‬Mitchell [13] ‫ اﻣﺎ‬.‫ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
 ‫اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻤﯿﺎه اﻟﺠﻮﻓﯿﺔ ﺧﻼل طﺒﻘﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ان اﻟﮭﺪف اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺲ ﻟﮭﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬اﯾﺠﺎد ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ واﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ اﻟﻠﺘﺎن‬
‫ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮا‬

‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت ﻗﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﺔ‬

‫ﻰ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺎﻛﻠﻲ وﻣﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ واﻟﻨﻔﺎذﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ - 2‬اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ وطﺮاﺋﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫‪ 1-2‬اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (1.0 m‬ﺗ ﺤﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى‬ ‫‪ 1-1-2‬اﻟﺘﺮﺑــﺔ‪-:‬‬
‫ﺠﺪول )‪(1‬‬
‫‪ .‬اﻟ‬
‫ﺔ‬
‫)‪.(CH‬‬
‫اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎ )‪ (15%, 16.0 kN/m3‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻮاﻟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺒﯿﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(1‬‬

‫(‬ ‫‪+‬‬ ‫)‬

‫‪.‬‬
‫واﻟﻜﺎﻟﺴﺎﯾﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2-1-2‬اﻟﻤــﺎء ‪-:‬‬
‫اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻟﯿﻠﯿﺔ واﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت اﻟﻜﯿﻤﯿﺎﺋﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ اﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﻄﺮ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 2–2‬إﻋﺪاد اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج ﻟﻠﻔﺤﺺ‪:‬‬

‫)‪(60oC‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺎء ﻛﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬وﺿﻌﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺒﻮات ﺑﻼﺳﺘﯿﻜﯿﺔ وﺗﺮﻛﺖ ﻟﻤﺪة ‪ 24‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻷو ﻟﻰ ﺳﺒﻜﺖ‬ ‫ﻟﻐﺮض ﺗﺠﺎﻧﺲ رطﻮﺑﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰ طﺒﻘﺔ واﺣﺪة ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ داﺧﻞ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ اﻟﺮص ]‪ .[9‬اﻣﺎ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﺳﺒﻜﺖ اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ وﺣﺴﺐ اﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺔ )‪.(ASTM D 1557-79‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ *( 1‬اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺪﻟﯿﻠﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻄﺒﯿﻌﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬

‫‪51‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪ اﻟﺴﯿﻮﻟﺔ )‪% (L.L‬‬

‫‪24‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪود اﺗﺮﺑﺮك ﺣﺪ اﻟﻠﺪوﻧﺔ )‪% (P.L‬‬

‫‪27‬‬ ‫دﻟﯿﻞ اﻟﻠﺪوﻧﺔ )‪% (P.I‬‬

‫‪14.6‬‬ ‫اﻻﻧﻜﻤﺎش اﻟﺨﻄﻲ )‪% (L.S‬‬

 ‫‪2.72‬‬ ‫اﻟﻮزن اﻟﻨﻮﻋﻲ )‪(Gs‬‬

‫‪CH‬‬ ‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﺘﺼﻨﯿﻒ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ )‪( U.C.S.‬‬

‫‪Group= A-7‬‬ ‫ﺗﺼﻨﯿ‬

‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﺘﺼﻨﯿﻒ اﻟﺠﻤﻌﯿﺔ اﻷﻣﺮﯾﻜﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮق‬ ‫ف‬
‫‪Sub‬‬
‫)‪(AASHTO C.S.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
‫‪Group=A-7-‬‬
‫‪6‬‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺼﻰ ‪ 4.76 < %‬ﻣﻠﻢ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬
‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪ 0.074‬ﻣﻠﻢ > اﻟﺮﻣﻞ ‪ 4.76  %‬ﻣﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺒﯿﺒﻲ‬
‫‪45‬‬ ‫‪ 0.002‬ﻣﻠﻢ > اﻟﻐﺮﯾﻦ ‪ 0.074  %‬ﻣﻠﻢ‬

‫‪40‬‬ ‫اﻟﻄﯿﻦ ‪ 0.002  %‬ﻣﻠﻢ‬

‫‪0.71‬‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﯿﺔ )‪(Activity‬‬

‫‪1.3‬‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﺠﺒﺲ‪%‬‬

‫‪1.46‬‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﻌﻀﻮﯾﺔ ‪%‬‬

‫‪0.3‬‬ ‫اﻣﻼح اﻟﻜﺒﺮﯾﺘﺎت )‪% (SO3‬‬

‫اﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت‬
‫‪2.25‬‬ ‫اﻻﻣﻼح اﻟﺬاﺋﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ )‪% (T.S.S‬‬ ‫اﻟﻜﯿﻤﯿﺎﺋﯿﺔ‬
‫‪8.54‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮﻗﻢ اﻟﮭﯿﺪروﺟﯿﻨﻲ )‪(pH -value‬‬

‫‪28‬‬ ‫ﺳﻌﺔ اﻟﺘﺒﺎدل اﻻﯾﻮﻧﻲ ‪(C.E.C) (meq/100 mg of‬‬

‫)‪soil‬‬

‫‪ ‬ﻛﻞ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﻌﺪل ﻟﺜﻼث ﺗﺠﺎرب او أﻛﺜﺮ وھﻜﺬا ﻟﺒﻘﯿﺔ اﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت‪.‬‬

‫‪Ch.=Chlorite‬‬ ‫‪M.=Montmorillonite‬‬

‫‪P.=Palygroskite‬‬ ‫‪I.=Illite‬‬

‫‪G.=Gypsum‬‬ ‫‪Kao.=Kaolinite‬‬
‫‪Intensity‬‬

‫‪Q.=Quarts‬‬ ‫‪C.=Calcite‬‬

‫)‪Differena l angl e (2 θ‬‬

‫اﻟﺷﻛل )‪ (1‬اﻟﺗﺣﻠﯾل اﻟﻣﻌدﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ اﻟطﺑﯾﻌﯾﺔ‬
 ‫‪ 3-2‬اﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮﯾﺔ‪:‬‬
‫) ‪(2‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت واﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ أﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ أﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬

‫)‪(Matric Suction‬‬ ‫)‪(Total Suction‬‬

‫‪8, 11, 13, )%‬‬ ‫)‪(17.1 kN/m3‬‬
‫‪.(15, 17, 19, 23‬‬
‫‪o‬‬
‫)‪.[12] (24 C±1‬‬ ‫)‪(14‬‬
‫ﻧﻮع‪ S&S Round Filter No.5893‬ﺑﻘﻄﺮ )‪ .(55mm‬ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ھﺬه اﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﻟﺴﮭﻮﻟﺘﮭﺎ‪ ،‬اﻟﻔﺘﺮة‬
‫اﻟﺰﻣﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻘﻠﯿﻠﺔ ﻹﺟﺮاء اﻟﻔﺤﺺ )‪ 7‬اﯾﺎم ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻗﻞ ‪ (ASTM D5298-03‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ إﻣﻜﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬
‫ﻗﯿﺎس ﻣﺪى واﺳﻌﺎ ً ﻣﻦ ﻗﯿﻢ إﺟﮭﺎد اﻟﻤﺺ )‪ (106-0‬ﻛﯿﻠﻮﺑﺎﺳﻜﺎل‪.‬‬

‫اﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج‬
‫اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺎت‬ ‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻔﺤﺺ‬
‫)‪(mm‬‬
‫طﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﺮص‬
‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫‪D=152.4‬‬
‫] ‪[9‬‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫) ‪200 &2000‬‬ ‫‪H=203.2‬‬
‫‪(psi‬‬
‫‪D=50‬‬ ‫طﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬
‫‪H=100‬‬ ‫‪ASTM‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮص‬
‫طﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﺮص‬ ‫‪D=102‬‬ ‫‪D 1557-‬‬
‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‬
‫)ﻗﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ وﻣﻌﺪﻟﺔ(‬ ‫‪H=117‬‬ ‫‪79‬‬
‫‪D=152.4‬‬
‫‪H=114.3‬‬
‫‪D=51‬‬ ‫‪ASTM‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﻏﯿﺮ‬
‫‪H=102‬‬ ‫‪D 2166-68‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر‬
‫ﺳﺮﻋﺔ اﻟﻔﺤﺺ‬ ‫‪ASTM‬‬
‫‪60x60x20‬‬ ‫اﻟﻘﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‬
‫)‪(0.02mm/min.‬‬ ‫‪D 3080-72‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ‬
‫‪D=63.5‬‬ ‫اﻻﻧﺸﻄﺎر‬ ‫اﻟﻘﺺ‬
‫‪ASTM‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
‫‪H=101.6‬‬ ‫)‪(Splitting‬‬ ‫ﻗﻮة اﻟﺸﺪ‬
‫‪D4123-28‬‬
‫ﻏﯿﺮ‬
‫‪ASTM‬‬ ‫اﻻﻧﺤﻨﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‬
‫‪300x50x50‬‬
‫‪D 1632-96‬‬ ‫)‪(Bending‬‬
 ‫‪D=152.4‬‬ ‫‪AASHTO‬‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﻜﺎﻟﯿﻔﻮرﻧﻲ‬
‫‪H=114.3‬‬ ‫‪T193-72‬‬ ‫)‪(CBR‬‬
‫‪ASTM‬‬
‫اﻻﻧﻀﻤﺎم‬
‫‪D=63.5‬‬ ‫‪D 2435-80‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻐﯿﺮ‬
‫‪H=19‬‬ ‫‪ASTM‬‬ ‫اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ اﻟﺤﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺠﻤﻲ‬
‫اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ‬
‫‪D 4546-91‬‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺠﻢ اﻟﺜﺎﺑﺖ‬
‫‪ASTM‬‬
‫‪D=51‬‬ ‫‪EM 1110-‬‬ ‫اﻟﻔﺘﺎت‬
‫‪H=102‬‬ ‫‪2-70‬‬
‫]‪[15‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮﻛﻮد‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺮب‬
‫ﻗﻄﺮ اﻟﺜﻘﺐ‬ ‫أﻟﺘﺂﻛﻠﻲ‬
‫)‪( WES‬‬
‫)‪(4mm‬‬ ‫‪D=106‬‬ ‫اﻟﺜﻘﺐ‬
‫‪EM 1110-‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺮة ﺑﻘﺎء اﻟﺸﺤﻨﺔ‬ ‫‪H=117‬‬ ‫)‪(Pinhole‬‬
‫‪2-80‬‬
‫)‪(30 min.‬‬
‫وﺟﺪت ﻣﻦ ﻓﺤﺺ‬ ‫‪Variable‬‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫اﻻﻧﻀﻤﺎم اﯾﻀﺎ ً‬ ‫‪D=63.5‬‬ ‫‪head‬‬ ‫اﻟﮭﯿﺪروﻟﯿﻜﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻨﻔﺎذﯾﺔ‬
‫‪H=19‬‬ ‫‪method‬‬
‫] ‪[9‬‬
‫‪D=63.5‬‬ ‫‪ASTM‬‬ ‫ورق اﻟﺘﺮﺷﯿﺢ‬
‫‪H=25.4‬‬ ‫‪D 5298-03‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻮل‬ ‫اﺟﮭﺎدات‬
‫‪D=30‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺒﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺺ‬
‫]‪[8‬‬
‫‪H=12‬‬ ‫اﻟﻐﺸﺎء‬
‫اﻟﺘﻨﺎﺿﺤﻲ‬

‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (2‬اﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮﯾﺔ وﻣﻮاﺻﻔﺎﺗﮭﺎ اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ واﺑﻌﺎد اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج‬

‫‪ 3‬ـ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ واﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‬

‫‪ 1-3‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ‪ ،‬طﺎﻗﺔ وﻗﻄﺮ اﺳﻄﻮاﻧﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﺮص‪:‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (2‬و اﻟﺠﺪول )‪(3‬‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ،‬ﻛ ﻤﺎ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ‬
‫اﻟﺮص‬ ‫ﺑ‬ ‫ﺗ‬
‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪ ،‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ ﻓﺈﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻋﻜﺴﯿﺎ ﻣﻊ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف‪ .‬إن ﻟﺤﺠﻢ اﺳﻄﻮاﻧﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮص ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﺤﺪود ﻋﻠﻰ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف اﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ‪ ،‬ﺣﯿﺚ ﺗﺰداد ﺑﺰﯾﺎدة ﺣﺠﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ]‪.[9‬‬
 ‫ﻟ ﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺼﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫اﻟ ﺨ‬

‫اﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ وا ﻟ ﻤﺤ ﺘ ﻮى ا ﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ اﻻﻣﺜﻞ ) ‪(18%, 17.1 kN/m3‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ واﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ واﻟﻤﺺ‪.‬‬

‫‪3‬‬
‫‪( 22.5%, 15.7‬‬
‫) ‪20 kN/m‬‬ ‫ا ﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ‬ ‫ﻋ‬
‫)‪. . . S.C. (200 psi‬‬
‫***‬ ‫‪S.D.C.(10.16*11.684)cm‬‬
‫‪M.D.C.(10.16*11.684)cm‬‬ ‫اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬
‫‪S.C. (2000‬‬ ‫)‪psi‬‬ ‫ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫‪19‬‬ ‫*‬ ‫‪S.D.C.(5*10)cm‬‬ ‫‪Field Density‬‬
‫) ‪Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3‬‬

‫‪M.D.C.(5*10)cm‬‬
‫‪S.D.C.(15.24*11.43)cm‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫‪+++‬‬ ‫‪S.D.C.(15.24*11.43)cm‬‬

‫‪17‬‬
‫‪16‬‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫‪13‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪10 12 14 16 18 20 22‬‬ ‫‪24 26‬‬ ‫‪28 30‬‬
‫‪0 0Water‬‬
‫‪0 Content‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪0 (%)0 0‬‬ ‫‪0 0‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫اﻟﺷﻛل )‪ (2‬اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﯾن اﻟﻣﺣﺗوى اﻟرطوﺑﻲ واﻟﻛﺛﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺟﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ اﻟطﺑﯾﻌﯾﺔ ) ﻣﻧﺣﻧﯾﺎت اﻟرص (‬

‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (3‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص واﺑﻌﺎد اﺳﻄﻮاﻧﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ رص اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
 ‫وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن‬
‫اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ‬ ‫طﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫اﺑﻌﺎد اﻻﺳﻄﻮاﻧﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺠﺎف‬ ‫طﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻻﻣﺜﻞ)‪(%‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮص‬ ‫)‪(mm‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮص‬
‫)‪(kN/m3‬‬

‫‪15.1‬‬ ‫‪22.5‬‬ ‫اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ‬

‫‪50 x 100‬‬
‫‪16.9‬‬ ‫‪18.0‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ‬

‫‪15.7‬‬ ‫‪22.5‬‬ ‫اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ‬ ‫)اﻻﺳﻄﻮاﻧﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺮص‬

‫اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ(‬ ‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‬
‫‪17.1‬‬ ‫‪18.0‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ‬ ‫‪102x117‬‬ ‫)‪(D.C.‬‬

‫‪15.9‬‬ ‫‪22.5‬‬ ‫اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ‬

‫‪152.4x114.3‬‬
‫‪17.5‬‬ ‫‪18.0‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ‬

‫‪16.0‬‬ ‫‪21.5‬‬ ‫‪200 Psi‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮص‬

‫‪152.4x203.2‬‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫‪2000‬‬
‫‪18.0‬‬ ‫‪15.0‬‬
‫‪Psi‬‬ ‫)‪(S.C.‬‬

‫‪ 2-3‬ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪:‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(3‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ‪ .‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(4‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ دﯾ‬
‫وﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ اﻟﺤﺒﯿﺒﺎت ﺑﺼﻮرة ﻣﺘﻘﺎرﺑﺔ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﮭﺪ اﻟﻤﺒﺬول ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺪق‪.‬‬
‫]‪Mitch [13‬‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﺗﻤﺘﻠﻚ ھﯿﻜﻞ ﻣﻔﺘﻮح )ﻓﺮاﻏﺎت ﻛﺒﯿﺮة وﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫و ]‪ Seed and chain [16‬ان رص اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﺗﻜﻮ ّن ﺑﻨﯿﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪة‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫رﺻﮭﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﻌﺠﻦ ﻓﺎن ﺑﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﺘﻮازﯾﺔ وﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪.(5‬‬

‫‪ 3–3‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪ 1-3-3‬ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر‪ :‬ان ﻗﯿﻢ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮة اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر )‪،(qu‬‬
‫ﺼﻼﺑﺔ )]‪(Toughness Index (T.I.) [19‬‬ ‫‪/‬ا ﻟ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﻣﻞ ا ﻟﻤﺮوﻧﺔ )‪(secant E‬‬
‫وﻗﯿﻤﺔ اﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎل ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻔﺸﻞ )‪ ،(f‬ﺑﯿﻨﺖ ان ﻧﻤﺎذج اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ أﻛﺒﺮ‬
‫) ‪ 6‬و ‪(7‬‬ ‫) ‪(4‬‬ ‫ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻟ ﻠ ﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤ ﺴﺒﻮﻛ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮازي‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟ ﺘﻮاﻟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫)‪(Dispersed‬‬
‫وﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ‬ ‫)‪(Flocculated‬‬
‫ﺻﺮ( و اﻻﺣ ﺘﻜﺎك‬‫) اﻷو ا‬ ‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﻣﻤﺎ ﯾﺆدي‬
‫ﺑﯿﻦ ﺣﺒﯿﺒﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ وﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة ﻗﻮة ﻗﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ]‪.[4‬‬
 ‫)‬ ‫‪ 2-3-3‬ﻗﻮة اﻟﻘﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪ :‬ان‬
‫وﻗﻮة اﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ اﻟﻔﻌﺎل )‪ ((ć, ǿ‬ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﺻﻨﺪوق اﻟﻘﺺ‪ ،‬ﺑﯿﻨﺖ ان ﻧﻤ ﺎ ذج اﻟ ﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤ ﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ أﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻟ ﻠ ﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤ ﺴﺒﻮﻛ‬
‫)‪ (4‬واﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪.(8‬‬

‫اﻻ ﻧﺸﻄﺎر‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻓﺤﻮ ﺻﺎت‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪3-3-3‬‬

‫ا ﻟﻤﺒ ﺎﺷﺮ‬ ‫)‪ (Splitting Test‬و اﻻ ﻧﺤﻨﺎء )‪ ،(Bending / Flectural test‬إن‬
‫ﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺪول )‪.(4‬‬
‫ﻗﻮة اﻟﺸﺪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪.(4‬‬

‫)‪ (CBR‬ﻟ ﻠﻨﻤﺎذج‬ ‫)‪ (9‬إن‬ ‫)‪:(CBR‬‬ ‫‪4-3-3‬‬

‫ا ﻟ ﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘ ﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص‬

‫)‪(CBR‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص‬
‫) ‪(4‬‬ ‫وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف اﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ اﻻﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫‪ .‬واﻟ ﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ وﺗﺮاﺻﻒ ﺣﺒﯿﺒﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﻢ اﻟﻔﺮاﻏﺎت وﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ أﻋﻄﺖ ﻗﻮة ﺗﺤﻤﻞ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﮫ ﻓﻲ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪ .‬ﯾﻌﺘﻘﺪ أن ﺿﻐﻂ ﻣﺎء اﻟﻤﺴﺎم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ذات اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎ ھﻮ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ذات اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪة ]‪.[16‬‬

‫‪ 4-3‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻐﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﺠﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪1-4-3‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻨﺪ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف اﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ اﻻﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام‬
‫‪.‬‬
‫‪ .‬اﺗﻔﻘﺖ‬ ‫) ‪(4‬‬
‫ھﺬه اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻞ اﻟﯿﮫ]‪Seed and Chain [16‬‬
‫واﻟﺼﺪﻣﻲ واﻟﻌﺠﻦ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(10‬‬

‫رطﻮﺑﻲ )‪.(%22.7‬‬
 ‫‪Lumps‬‬
‫‪Lumps‬‬

‫)‪ (b‬ﻧﻣوذج ﺗرﺑﺔ ﻣﺳﺑوك دﯾﻧﺎﻣﯾﻛﯾﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (a‬ﻧﻣوذج ﺗرﺑﺔ ﻣﺳﺑوك اﺳﺗﺎﺗﯾﻛﯾﺎ‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (3‬ﺻﻮر ﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‬

‫‪Voids‬‬

‫‪Voids‬‬

‫‪Scale: 1/100‬‬ ‫‪Scale: 1/100‬‬

‫)‪ (b‬ﻧﻣوذج ﺗرﺑﺔ ﻣﺳﺑوك دﯾﻧﺎﻣﯾﻛﯾﺎ‬ ‫)‪ (a‬ﻧﻣوذج ﺗرﺑﺔ ﻣﺳﺑوك اﺳﺗﺎﺗﯾﻛﯾﺎ‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ)‪ (4‬ﺻﻮر ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺠﮭﺮ اﻟﻀﻮﺋﻲ ﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‬

‫)‪ (b‬اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ اﻟﻣﺷﺗﺗﺔ ‪Dispersion Soil‬‬ ‫)‪ (a‬اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ اﻟﻣﺗﻠﺑدة ‪Flocculation Soil‬‬
‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (5‬ﺑﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ]‪[6‬‬
 ‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (4‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻄﯿﻨﯿﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺮص‬ ‫اﻟﺮص‬
‫اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‬

‫‪930‬‬ ‫‪650‬‬ ‫)‪qu (kN/m2‬‬

‫‪18x105‬‬ ‫‪16x105‬‬ ‫)‪E (kN/m2‬‬ ‫ﻗﻮة اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط‬

‫ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر‬
‫‪8.0‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬ ‫)‪f (%‬‬ ‫)‪(kN/m2‬‬ ‫ﻗﻮة ﻗﺺ‬
‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪4.2‬‬ ‫‪T.I‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬

‫‪49‬‬ ‫‪27.5‬‬ ‫)‪Ć (kN/m2‬‬

‫اﻟﻘﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‬
‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪ǿ Degree‬‬

‫‪102‬‬ ‫‪76.5‬‬ ‫)‪Splitting (kN/m2‬‬ ‫ﻗﻮة اﻟﺸﺪ ﻏﯿﺮ‬

‫‪172‬‬ ‫‪144‬‬ ‫)‪Bending (kN/m2‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‬

‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪3.2‬‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﻜﺎﻟﯿﻔﻮرﻧﻲ )‪(%) ، (CBR‬‬

‫‪3.2‬‬ ‫‪4.10‬‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ )‪(%‬‬

‫ﺿﻐﻂ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ‬ ‫ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ‬

‫‪177‬‬ ‫‪211‬‬
‫)‪(kN/m2‬‬

‫‪1.7×10-8‬‬ ‫‪1.2×10-7‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﻨﻔﺎذﯾﺔ )‪k (cm/sec‬‬

‫‪1000‬‬
‫‪900‬‬
‫‪800‬‬
‫‪700‬‬
‫‪Normal Stress‬‬

‫‪600‬‬
‫)‪(kN/m2‬‬

‫‪500‬‬
‫‪400‬‬
‫‪300‬‬
‫‪200‬‬
‫‪D.C.‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪S.C.‬‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫)‪Axial Strain (%‬‬
 ‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (6‬ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻻﺟﮭﺎد واﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎل ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬

‫اﻣﺎ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (11‬ﯾﺒﯿﻦ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ودرﺟﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ )ﺣﯿﺚ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ اﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ ﻋﻨﺪ أي‬
‫وﻗﺖ ﻣﻘﺴﻮﻣﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ اﻟﻜﻠﻲ(‬
‫)‪(Initial Swelling‬‬
‫اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺴﻲ )‪ (Primary Swelling‬وﺻﻮﻻً اﻟﻰ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮي ) ‪Secondary‬‬
‫‪.[1] (Swelling‬‬
‫وﺟﺪ أن درﺟﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻟﻠﺮص‬

‫ﻛﺒﯿﺮاً ﻧﺴﺒﯿﺎ ً ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺴﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ ﯾﻘﻞ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﯾﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪%(25 ،86‬‬ ‫ﻓﺨﻼل )‪ (120‬دﻗ‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ واﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻮاﻟﻲ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﺗﺘﺮﺗﺐ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻢ )ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪة(‬

‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ ،(4‬وھﺬا ﺑﺪوره ﯾﺴﮭﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺔ إﯾﺼﺎل اﻟﻤﺎء إﻟﻰ ﺣﺒﯿﺒﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ھﺬه‬
‫)‬
‫وﺿﻐﻂ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ(‪.‬‬

‫‪1200‬‬
‫‪D.C.‬‬
‫‪1000‬‬ ‫‪S.C.‬‬

‫‪800‬‬
‫)‪U.C.S (kN/m2‬‬

‫‪600‬‬

‫‪400‬‬

‫‪200‬‬

‫‪0‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪D.C. 26‬‬
‫)‪Water content (%‬‬ ‫‪S.C.‬‬
‫)‪Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫‪15‬‬
‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (7‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر‬

‫‪250‬‬

‫‪200‬‬
‫)‪Shear Stress (kN/m2‬‬

‫‪150‬‬

‫‪100‬‬

‫‪50‬‬
‫‪D.C.‬‬
‫‪S.C.‬‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪150‬‬ ‫‪200‬‬ ‫‪250‬‬ ‫‪300‬‬ ‫‪350‬‬
‫)‪Normal Stress (kN/m2‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (8‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻐﻠﻒ اﻟﻔﺸﻞ وﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت ﻗﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬

 5
D.C.
S.C.
4

C.B.R. (%)
3

0
18.0
12 14 16 18 20 22 D.C. 24
S.C.
Dry Unit Weight

17.5
(kN/m3)

17.0

16.5

16.0
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Water content (%)
 ‫( ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﻜﺎﻟﯿﻔﻮرﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬9) ‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ‬
14
D.C.
12 S.C.
Percent of Swell

10

1 8 .00
12 14 16 18 20 22 D.C. 24
S .C.
Dry Unit Weight

1 7 .5
(kN/m3)

1 7 .0

1 6 .5

1 6 .0
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Water content (%)
‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (10‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎخ‬
 ‫‪100‬‬

‫‪90‬‬
‫‪Primary Swelling‬‬

‫)‪Degree of Swelling (%‬‬

‫‪Initial Swelling‬‬ ‫‪Secondary Swelling‬‬
‫‪80‬‬

‫‪70‬‬

‫‪60‬‬

‫‪50‬‬

‫‪40‬‬

‫‪30‬‬
‫‪Initial Swelling‬‬ ‫‪Primary Swelling‬‬ ‫‪Secondary Swelling‬‬
‫‪20‬‬

‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪D.C.‬‬
‫‪S.C.‬‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪0.1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1000‬‬ ‫‪10000‬‬
‫)‪Time (min.‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (11‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ اﻧﺘﻔﺎخ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬

‫‪ :‬ا ﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(12‬‬ ‫‪2-4-3‬‬

‫) ‪(5‬‬ ‫ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻨﺪ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ اﻻﻣﺜﻞ‪.‬‬
‫)‪(12‬‬
‫‪ 400‬و‪800‬‬ ‫) ‪) ( cv‬‬ ‫) ‪( cc‬‬
‫ﻛﯿﻠﻮﻧﯿﻮﺗﻦ ‪/‬م ( ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ ا ﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮫ‬
‫‪2‬‬

‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪ ،‬ﯾﻌﺰى ذﻟﻚ اﻟﻰ‬

‫اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ اﻻﺣﻤﺎل ﻣﻦ ﺑﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪة‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (5‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻻﻧﻀﻤﺎم ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬

‫‪cv ×10-2‬‬
‫‪-9‬‬
‫‪K ×10‬‬
‫‪(cm2/sec‬‬ ‫‪cs‬‬ ‫‪cc‬‬ ‫‪eo‬‬ ‫طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص‬
‫)‪(cm/sec‬‬
‫)‬

‫‪1.06‬‬ ‫‪0.8‬‬ ‫‪0.024‬‬ ‫‪0.115‬‬ ‫‪0.645‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‬

‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪0.23‬‬ ‫‪0.031‬‬ ‫‪0.08‬‬ ‫‪0.644‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‬

 ‫‪0.65‬‬
‫‪D.C.‬‬
‫‪0.63‬‬ ‫‪S.C‬‬

‫‪0.61‬‬

‫‪Void Ratio‬‬
‫‪0.59‬‬

‫‪0.57‬‬

‫‪0.55‬‬

‫‪0.53‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1000‬‬ ‫‪10000‬‬
‫)‪Stress (kN/m2‬‬
‫اﻟﺷﻛل )‪ (12‬ﺗﺄﺛﯾر طرﯾﻘﺔ اﻟرص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻧﺣﻧﻲ اﻻﻧﺿﻣﺎم ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ‬

‫‪ 5-3‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻮاص اﻟﮭﯿﺪروﻟﯿﻜﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪ 1-5-3‬اﻟﺘﺴﺮب اﻟﺘﺂﻛﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪.‬‬
‫)‪ .(Internal Erosion‬ﺑﯿﻨﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت واﻻﺑﺤﺎث ان‬
‫)‪(Dispersive Soil‬‬
‫]‪.[18]،[17‬‬
‫)‪.[18] (Dispersive Clay‬‬
‫دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺂﻛﻞ اﻟﺪاﺧﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﺟﺮاء اﻟﻔﺤﻮﺻﺎت اﻻﺗﯿﺔ‪:‬‬

‫)‪:(Crumb Test‬‬ ‫‪1-1-5-3‬‬

‫ا ﻟ ﻌﻈﻤﻰ‬
‫) ﻓﺸﻞ(‬ ‫اﻻﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔ ﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﻘﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﻄﺮ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ وان ﺣﺼﻮل اﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﻛﺎن ﻣﻔﺎﺟﺌﺎ‪ .‬ﺣﯿﺚ ﻛﺎن زﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺸﻞ اﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ )‪1.0-‬‬
‫‪ (0.5‬دﻗﯿﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﯿﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﺎن ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﯿﺔ )‪ (5.0-4.0‬دﻗﺎﺋﻖ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 2-1-5-3‬ﻓﺤﺺ اﻟﺮﻛﻮد )‪:(Slackening Test‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ )‪ [15] (Rahimi‬اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻮر ﻋﻦ ﻓﺤﺺ اﻟﻔﺘﺎت‪ .‬ﻟﻮﺣﻆ أن ﻛﻼ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﯿﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج ﻟﻢ‬
‫م‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮﺣﻆ إن اﻟ ﻨﻤﺎذج‬ ‫(‬ ‫ﺗﻔﺸﻞ )ﺗﺘﺪاﻋﻰ‪/‬‬
‫)‪%(7-4‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﯿﺔ ﻓﻘﺪت ﺣﻮاﻟﻲ )‪ %(5-3‬ﻣﻦ وزﻧﮭﺎ‪.‬‬

‫)‪(pinhole‬‬ ‫)‪:(Pinhole Test‬‬ ‫‪3-1-5-3‬‬

‫)‪ (EM 110-2-1906‬ﻣﻦ ‪(1980) Engineering maniual‬‬
‫) ‪(U.S. Army Engineers Water Ways Experiments Station‬‬
‫)‪- 3‬‬ ‫)‪(WES‬‬
‫ﺎدة ﻣﻘﺪار‬ ‫‪ .(1-1-4‬ﯾﻼﺣﻆ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (13‬ان ﻛﻤﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﯾﻒ ) اﻟ ﺘﺴ ﺮب أﻟﺘﺂﻛﻠﻲ(‬
‫‪.‬‬

‫‪.‬‬
‫اﻟ‬
‫ﻓﺘﺎح ]‪ ،[7‬ﻋﻨﺪ دراﺳﺘﮫ ﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ طﯿﻨﯿﺔ واطﺌﺔ اﻟﻠﺪوﻧﺔ )‪.(CL‬‬

‫زﯾﺎدة ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺘﻔﺮﻗﺔ )اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺘﺔ( ﻟﻼﺋﺘﻜ‬

‫ﺑﯿﻦ ﺣﺒﯿﺒﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ دﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﯿﺎ ﻣﻤﺎ ﯾﺆدي إﻟﻰ زﯾﺎدة ﻗﻮة اﻟﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺣﺒﯿﺒﺎﺗﮭﺎ وﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻟﻼﺋﺘﻜﺎل‪.‬‬

‫‪ 2-5-3‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﺟﮭﺎدات ﻣﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪ 1-2-5-3‬طﺮﯾﻘﺔ ورق اﻟﺘﺮﺷﯿﺢ‪ :‬ﯾﺘﻀﺢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (14‬وﺟﻮ‬
‫)‪100000 -10000‬‬ ‫) ‪(π‬‬ ‫)‪(ψ‬‬
‫ﻛﯿﻠﻮﻧﯿﻮﺗﻦ‪/‬م‪(2‬‬
‫طﻮﺑﻲ‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫)‪(14-A, B‬‬
‫‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ اﺟﮭﺎدات اﻟﻤﺺ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻧﺨﻔﺎض اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪ .‬اﺗﻔﻘﺖ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ‬

‫]‪ Al-Juari [2‬ﻋﻨﺪ دراﺳﺘﮭﺎ ﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﺘﺪاﻋﯿﺔ ﺧﻠﻄﺖ ﺑﻨﺴﺐ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺮب اﻟﻄﯿﻨﯿﺔ‪.‬‬

‫واﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪.‬‬
‫)‪.(14- C, D‬‬
‫ﺼ ﻠﺔ ا ﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(4‬‬
‫ﻣﺘ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺺ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ وﺟﻌﻠﮭﺎ ﻣﺴﺎوﯾﺔ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ ﻻﺟﮭﺎدات اﻟﻤﺺ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪.‬‬
 100

90

80

Flow Rate (ml/sec)

70

60

50

40

30 Dynamic Compaction

20
‫( ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ اﺟﮭﺎدات ﻣﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬12) ‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ‬
Static Compaction
10
Standard Aluminum
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Water Head (cm)

‫( ﺗﺄﺛﯾر طرﯾﻘﺔ اﻟرص ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺗﺳرب أﻟﺗﺂﻛﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ‬13) ‫اﻟﺷﻛل‬

25 25
20 20
Water Content (%)

15 15
10 Dynamic Compaction 10 Static Compaction

5 B 5 A
0 0
10000 ψ Soil Suction (kN/m2) 100000 10000 ψ Soil Suction (kN/m2) 100000
25 π 25 π
Water Content (%)

20 20

15 15
Static & Dynamic Static & Dynamic
10 10
D C
5 5

0 0
10000
π Matric Suction (kN/m2) 100000 10000
ψ Total Suction (kN/m2) 100000
π ψ

‫( ﺗﺄﺛﯾر طرﯾﻘﺔ اﻟرص ﻋﻠﻰ اﺟﮭﺎد اﻟﻣص اﻟﻛﻠﻲ واﻟﻧﺳﯾﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ‬14) ‫اﻟﺷﻛل‬
 ‫‪25‬‬

‫‪D. C‬‬ ‫‪S.C‬‬

‫‪20‬‬
‫)‪Water Content (%‬‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫‪0‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1000‬‬ ‫‪10000‬‬ ‫‪100000‬‬ ‫‪1000000‬‬

‫)‪Total Suction (kN/m2‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (15‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺧﺎﺻﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪-‬اﻟﻤﺎء‬

 ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪2-2-5-3‬‬
‫واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ اﻻﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام طﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ واﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺿﺤﻲ ]‪.[3‬‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫)‪(21‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮازن )‪(45‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺣﺎﺳﻮﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ادق ﺗﻤﺜﯿﻞ رﯾﺎﺿﻲ ﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺧﺎﺻﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪ -‬ا ﻟﻤﺎء ]‪ .[3‬ﺑ ﺎﻻﻋ ﺘﻤﺎد‬

‫دﻟﺔ‬ ‫)‪.(R2‬‬
‫ﻓﺮدﻻﻧﺪ واﻛﺴﯿﻨﻚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻓﻀﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﺎدﻻت ﻓﻲ دﻗﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﯿﻞ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺔ‪ .‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (15‬ﯾﺒﯿﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ‬
‫(‪،‬‬ ‫)‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫اﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ .‬اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (6‬ﯾﺒﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﯿﺮات )‪(a, n, m‬‬

‫وﻋﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻘﯿﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪3-5-3‬‬
‫ص ا ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎت‪.‬‬‫اﺗﺠﺎه ر‬
‫ﮫ‬ ‫وﺟﺪ ان ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﻨﻔﺎذﯾﺔ )‪ (k‬ﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‬
‫) ‪(4‬‬
‫)‪(Terzaghi‬‬
‫)‪.(5‬‬ ‫و‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪة اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮫ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ذات اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮازﯾﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺛﺒﻮت ﻧﺴ ﺒﺔ اﻟ ﻔﺮ اﻏﺎت ﻟ ﻠ ﻨﻤﺎذج‬
‫)‪ (4‬وا ﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪(5‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫]‪.[20] ،[4‬‬

‫‪ 6-3‬اﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻲ )‪:(Statistical Analysis‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺣﺎﺳﻮﺑﻲ )‪(SPSS 10‬‬

‫‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻰ دﻟﯿﻞ ﻟﺪوﻧﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ )‪ (PI %‬واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺮطﻮﺑﻲ اﻻﺑﺘﺪاﺋﻲ )‪ (wo %‬واﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫اﻻوﻟﯿﺔ )‪ (γd kN/m3‬واﻟﻮزن اﻟﻨﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ )‪ (Gs‬ﺑﺎﻻﺿ ﺎ ﻓﺔ ا ﻟﻰ ﻣﻘﺪ ار ا ﻟﺸﺤﻨﺔ )‪ (H m‬و ﻗﻄﺮ‬
‫اﻟﻔﺘﺤﺔ )‪ (D m‬ﻟﻔﺤﺺ اﻟﺜﻘﺐ‪.‬‬
‫)‪(Non Linear Regression‬‬

‫ﻗﻮي ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺪول )‪.(6‬‬

‫اﻟﺠﺪول)‪ (6‬ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ وﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺗﻤﺜﯿﻞ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺧﺎﺻﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪-‬اﻟﻤﺎء‬

‫ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻗﯿﻤﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﺷﺮات‬

‫ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﺎدﻟﺔ‬ ‫طﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻘﯿﺔ‬ ‫دﺧﻮل اﻟﮭﻮاء‬ ‫اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮص‬
‫‪ψr‬‬ ‫‪Θr‬‬ ‫‪ψa‬‬ ‫‪Θa‬‬ ‫‪R2 SSR‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬ ‫‪n‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬
‫‪3500‬‬ ‫‪0.99 2.45‬‬ ‫‪0.95‬‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪520‬‬ ‫‪20.7‬‬ ‫‪0.693‬‬ ‫‪1500‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬
‫‪3000‬‬ ‫‪0.99 4.01‬‬ ‫‪0.90‬‬ ‫اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿ‬
‫‪9.5‬‬ ‫‪450‬‬ ‫‪20.8‬‬ ‫‪0.700‬‬ ‫‪1500‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻛﻲ‬
 ‫اﻟﺠﺪول )‪ (7‬ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻻﺣﺼﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺮص‬

‫‪Test‬‬ ‫‪Regression Model‬‬ ‫‪R2‬‬

‫‪qu dy.=19.2922 (qu st.)0.907 x (PI / wo)-1.1275 x (γd /Gs γw)-‬‬ ‫‪0.999‬‬
‫‪UCS‬‬ ‫‪0.8466‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫‪Direct‬‬ ‫‪0.999‬‬
‫‪τ dy.= τst.0.948 + (PI / wo)4.898 - (γd /Gs γw)1.675‬‬
‫‪Shear‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪CBR dy.=12.0809(CBR st.)1.0645 x (PI / wo)-0.3789 x (γd /‬‬ ‫‪0.998‬‬
‫‪CBR‬‬
‫‪Gs γw)-1.128‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Swelli‬‬ ‫‪Swell dy.=0.20539 (swell st.)0.6905 x (PI / wo)1.565 x (γd /‬‬ ‫‪0.999‬‬
‫‪ng‬‬ ‫‪Gs γw)0.552‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪Consol‬‬ ‫‪0.984‬‬
‫‪i-‬‬ ‫‪cc dy.= 0.01(cc st.)0.714 + (PI / wo)0.259 - (γd / Gs γw)0.0642‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪dation‬‬
‫‪Pinhol Qdy. =(Q st.)0.9776 + (H/D)-0.108 + (PI / wo)6.745 - (γd / Gs‬‬ ‫‪0.994‬‬
‫‪e Test γw)0.8044‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪ – 4‬اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎت‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺗﻢ اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ اﻟﻰ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﯿﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -1‬إن وﺣﺪة اﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ اﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻨﮭﺎ ﻟﻠﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﯿﻨﻤﺎ وﺟﺪ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻟﻠﺮطﻮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟ ﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪ -2‬إن طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ ﺗﺰﯾﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮة اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ﻏﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮر‬
‫أﻛﺒﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬إن‬
‫اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬إن اﻟﺮص اﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ ﯾﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ أﻛﺒﺮ ﻟﻠﺘﺂﻛﻞ اﻟﺪاﺧﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮص اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -5‬إن طﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ اﻟﺮص )اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ واﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ( ﻟﯿﺲ ﻟﮭﻤﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺟﮭﺎدات ﻣﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪-6‬‬
‫اﻟﺮص )اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ واﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎﻣﯿﻜﻲ(‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻄﺮﯾﻘﺘﻲ‬

‫‪ -5‬اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‬

‫‪1. AL-Barwary, M., “Effect of Wetting and Drying Cycles on Swelling‬‬

‫‪Properties of Soil under Different Loading in Summel City” M.Sc.‬‬
‫‪thesis, University of Mosul, Iraq, 2006.‬‬
2. Al-Juari, K., “The Effect of Clay Percentage on Volume Change of
Collapsible Soil In Mosul City” M.Sc. thesis, University of Mosul,
Iraq, 2005.

3. Al-Taie, L., “Correlation between Suction and some engineering

properties of lime stabilized clayey Soil from Mosul City” M.Sc.
thesis, University of Mosul, Iraq, 2005.

4. Arora, K. R., “Introductory Soil Engineering”, Standard publishers

Distributors, Delhi, 1988.

5. Attom, M.F., Abu-Zreig, M.M. and Obaidar, M.T. "Changes in Clay

Swelling and Shear Strength Properties with Different Sample
Preparation Techniques" Geotechnical testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol.
24, No.2, pp.157-163. 2001.

6. Das, B. M., “Introduction to Soil Mechanics”, Iowa state university

press, India, 1989.

7. Fatah, A.A., “Study of Earth Dams Failure by Piping” M.Sc. thesis,

University of Salahaddin, Iraq, 1990.

8. Khattab, S.A.A., “Eude Multi-echelles d`un Sol Plastique Traitè à la

Chaux”, Thèse de Doctorat, Universitè d`Orleans, France. 2002.

9. Lambe, T.W., “Soil Testing for Engineers”, Wiley Eastern – Limited,

India, 1984.

10. Lambe , T.W. , “The Engineering Behavior of Compacted Clay”

Journal , Soil Mechanics and foundation division , American Society
of Civil Engineering , Vol. 84 , No. SM2 May, 1958.

11. Lambe T.W., “The structure of compacted clay”, Journal, Soil

Mechanics and foundation division, American Society of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 84, No. SM2 May, 1958.

12. Leong, E.C., He, L. and Rahardjo, H.,“Factors Affecting Filter Paper
Method for Total and Matric Suction Measurements”, Geotehnical
Testing Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 1-12 , 2002.

13. Mitchel, J.K., “Fundamental of Soil Behavior”, John Wiley, New

York, 1976.
14. Olsen, E. R. and Mesri, A. M., “Mechanism Controlling
Compressibility of Clays”, J. S. M. F. Div., Proceeding of The ASCE,
Vol.96, No.SM6, 1970.

15. Rahimi, R.; Abbasi, N. And Davarzani, H., “Physical Dispersivity

Phenomenon and Its Evaluation Criteria in Cohesion less Soils”. 2nd
International conference on advances in soft soil engineering and
technology, 2-4 July, Putrajava, Malaysia, 2003.

16. Seed, H. B. and Chan, C. K.," Structure and Strength Characteristics

of Compaction Clays",Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
85, No. SM 5, pp. 87- 128, October, 1959.

17. Shaikh, A., Ruff, J.F. and Abt, S.R., “Erosion Rate of compacted NA-
Montmorillonite Soils”, J, Geotechnical Engineering. IV., Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 114, No. 3, March, PP. 296-305. 1988.

18.Sherard, J.L., Decker, R.S. and Ryker, N.L. “Piping in earth dams of
dispersive clay”, Proc. ASCE, Specialty Conference on the
Performance of earth and earth-supported structures, vol.1, june, pp.
589-626. 1972.

19. Sobhan, K. And Mashnad, M., “ Mechanical Stabilization of

Cemented Soil- Fly Ash Mixtures with Recycled Plastic Strips”,
Journal of environmental engineering, Vol. 129, No. 10, October 1,
2003.

20. Todd, D.K., " Ground Water Hydrology ", Toppan Company, Ltd.,
Tokyo, Japan, PP. 94, 1959.