Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 67–79 | Cite as

An approach to characterisation of multi-scale pore geometry and correlation with moisture storage and transport coefficients in cement-stabilised soils

  • Matthew R. HallEmail author
  • Sacha J. Mooney
  • Craig Sturrock
  • Paolo Matelloni
  • Sean P. Rigby
Research Paper

Abstract

An experimental approach to the characterisation of the complex, multi-scale pore geometry in cement-stabilised soils is presented, in which the pore size distribution inclusively spans at least six orders of magnitude from ~3 nm up to >3 mm. These most likely result from the combined effects of granular inter-particle packing, clay/cement clothing and bridging effects, cement hydration and clay/cement pozzolanic reactions, and alteration of larger pore geometries as a result of solid mass mobilisation and transport following capillary wetting/drying regimes. Experimental data are presented and were obtained through a combination of X-ray computed tomography, mercury intrusion porosimetry and N2 physisorption supported by ‘wet mode’ environmental scanning electron microscopy. Data strongly suggest that macropore/capillary pore size distribution, mean pore size, sorptivity and transport coefficients are a function of particle size distribution (when compaction energy is constant). Mesopore size distribution, which dominates hygric sorption/desorption behaviour, occurs within the clay/cement matrix and also appears to be strongly influenced by the particle size distribution of the granular phase. All other factors being equal, manipulation of granular particle size distribution can be used to engineer the hygric (vapour) and capillary (liquid) potentials and also the fluid transport coefficients of these materials.

Keywords

Cement-stabilised soils Moisture transport Pore geometry Porous media Water vapour storage 

Abbreviations

n

Porosity

p

Pressure (Pa)

pv

Partial vapour pressure (Pa)

Rvap

Gas constant for water vapour (J/kg K)

RH

Relative humidity (where RH = φ·100)

T

Temperature (K)

Tdb

Dry bulb temperature (K)

S

Sorptivity (mm/min0.5)

w

Relative moisture content (kg/kg)

α

Fluid contact angle (°)

γ

Surface tension (Nm)

Ψ

Capillary potential, that is, ‘suction’ pressure (Pa)

θ0

Relative moisture content (dry), that is, zero moisture content

θr

Relative moisture content (residual), that is, when equilibrated at φ → 1

φ

Relative humidity equal to p/p 0 (0 ≤ φ ≤ 1)

ρ

Density (kg/m3)

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the technical support and assistance of Nikki Weston and Keith Dinsdale at the University of Nottingham.

References

  1. 1.
    Allinson D, Hall MR (2010) Hygrothermal analysis of a stabilised rammed earth test building in the UK. Energy Build 42:845–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnes GE (2000) Soil mechanics: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Macmillan Press Ltd, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett EP, Joyner LG, Halenda PH (1951) The determination of pore volume and area distributions in porous substances—I. Computations from nitrogen isotherms. J Am Chem Soc 73:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bird N, Cruz Diaz M, Saab A, Tarquisc AN (2006) Fractal and multifractal analysis of pore-scale images of soil. J Hydrol 322:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carminati A, Kaestner A, Ippisch O, Koliji A, Lehmann P, Hassanein R, Vontobel P, Lehmann E, Laloui L, Vulliet L, Flühler H (2007) Water flow between soil aggregates. Transp Porous Media 68(2):219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coasne B, Galarneau A, Di Renzo F, Pellenq RJM (2009) Intrusion and retraction of fluids in nanopores: effect of morphological heterogeneity. J Phys Chem C 113:1953–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crawford JW, Ritz K, Young IM (1993) Quantifi cation of fungal morphology, gaseous transport and microbial dynamics in soils: an integrated framework utilising fractal geometry. Geoderma 56:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall M, Allinson D (2008) Assessing the effects of soil grading on the moisture content-dependent thermal conductivity of stabilised rammed earth materials. Appl Therm Eng 29(4):740–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall M, Allinson D (2009) Analysis of the hygrothermal functional properties of stabilised rammed earth materials. Build Environ 44(9):1935–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall M, Allinson D (2009) ‘Influence of cementitious binder content on moisture transport in stabilised earth materials analysed using 1-D sharp wet front theory. Build Environ 44(4):688–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horgan GW, Ball BC (1994) Simulating diffusion in a Boolean model of soil pores. Eur J Soil Sci 45(4):483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IPRF (2005) Effects of coarse aggregate clay coatings on concrete performance. Technical report IPRF-01-G-002-01-4.2, Innovative Pavement Research Foundation, Skokie, ILGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karnaukhov APJ (1985) Improvement of methods for surface area determinations. J Colloid Interface Sci 103:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kloubek J (1981) Hysteresis in porosimetry. Powder Technol 29:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lal R, Shukla M (2004) Principles of soil physics. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liabastre AA, Orr C (1978) An evaluation of pore structure by mercury penetration. J Colloid Interface Sci 64:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin HS, McInnes KJ, Wilding LP, Hallmark CT (1999) Effects of soil morphology on hydraulic properties—I. quantification of soil morphology. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:948–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McNaught AD, Wilkinson A (1997) Compendium of chemical terminology: IUPAC recommendations, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mitchell JK (1976) Fundamentals of soil behaviour. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mooney SJ, Korosak D (2009) Using complex networks to model 2-D and 3-D soil porous architecture. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1094–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Posadas AND, Giménez D, Quiroz R, Protz R (2003) Multifractal characterization of soil pore systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1361–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Powles JG (1985) On the validity of the Kelvin equation. J Phys A Math Gen 18:1551–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prosperini N, Perugini D (2007) Application of a cellular automata model to the study of soil particle size distributions. Phys A 388:595–602Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rigby SP (2002) New methodologies in mercury porosimetry. Stud Surf Sci Catal 144:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seaton NA (1991) Determination of the connectivity of porous solids from nitrogen sorption measurements. Chem Eng Sci 46:1895–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheng D, Gens A, Fredlund DG, Sloan SW (2008) Unsaturated soils: from constitutive modelling to numerical algorithms. Comput Geotech 35(6):810–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Brakel J, Modry S, Svata M (1981) Mercury porosimetry: state of the art. Powder Technol 29:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vogel H-J, Roth K (2001) Quantitative morphology and network representation of soil pore structure. Adv Water Res 24:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vogel H-J, Tölke J, Schulz VP, Krafczyk M, Roth K (2005) Comparison of a Lattice-Boltzmann model, a full-morphology model, and a pore network model for determining capillary pressure-saturation relationships. Vadose Zone J 4:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Washburn EW (1921) The dynamics of capillary flow. Phys Rev 17:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew R. Hall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sacha J. Mooney
    • 2
  • Craig Sturrock
    • 2
  • Paolo Matelloni
    • 3
  • Sean P. Rigby
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Materials, Mechanics and Structures, Faculty of Engineering, Nottingham Centre for GeomechanicsUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.School of Biosciences, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Advanced Materials Research Group, Division of Materials, Mechanics and Structures, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  4. 4.Division of Process and Environment, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations