Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 375–387 | Cite as

Primary fabric fraction analysis of granular soils

  • Huu Duc To
  • Sergio Andres Galindo Torres
  • Alexander Scheuermann
Article

Abstract

Granular soil can be considered as a composition of two fractions of particles; an immobile part called the primary fabric, and loose particles located in the voids formed by the immobile part considered to be potentially mobile. The primary fabric transfers momentum through force chains formed by interconnected force chains. These force chains form pores where loose particles are located. As a consequence, loose particles can be mobilised very easily under the influence of seepage flow and transported away if the geometrical conditions of the pore structure allows it. Therefore, the determination of the primary fabric fraction, as well as loose particle fraction, is of vital importance especially in soil suffusion predictions, which must be thoroughly considered in the design of hydraulic structures or their risk assessment. This paper presents a new method to simulate the behaviour of soils under stress and introduces a numerical analysis to define the primary fabric fraction. To achieve this, soil specimens are built by a new sequential packing method, which employs trilateration equations for packing. Later, specimens are compacted under oedometric conditions using the discrete element method to observe how the loading force is distributed across the solid matrix and to identify the fraction of the soil sustaining the external force. The primary fabric fraction analysis is conducted on two types of soil particle arrangements with several grain size distributions. A striking finding of this study is that the portion of the soil belonging to the primary fabric greatly depends on the structural packing of the granular particles. This finding should be used as evidence for the formulation of more accurate criteria for the prediction of suffusion and erosion in the future.

Keywords

Discrete element Force chain Internal stability Primary fabric size Sequential packing Suffusion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author was granted a scholarship from the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and a top-up scholarship from the Graduate School of The University of Queensland (UQ). The presented research is part of the Discovery Project (DP120102188) Hydraulic erosion of granular structures: experiments and computational simulations were funded by the Australian Research Council. The simulations were based on Mechsys, an open source library and carried out using the Macondo Cluster from the School of Civil Engineering at The University of Queensland. The first author also obtained benefit from the GSITA of UQ.

References

  1. 1.
    Bagi K (2005) An algorithm to generate random dense arrangements for discrete element simulations of granular assemblies. Granul Matter 7(1):31–43CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belheine N et al (2009) Numerical simulation of drained triaxial test using 3D discrete element modeling. Comput Geotech 36(1):320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezrukov A, Bargieł M, Stoyan D (2002) Statistical analysis of simulated random packings of spheres. Part Part Syst Charact 19(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buechler S, Johnson S (2013) Efficient generation of densely packed convex polyhedra for 3D discrete and finite-discrete element methods. Int J Numer Methods Eng 94(1):1–19CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burenkova V (1993) Assessment of suffusion in non-cohesive and graded soils. In: Brauns J, Schuler U (eds) Filters in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cundall PA, Strack OD (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29(1):47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) Discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16(4):77Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Addetta GA (2004) Discrete models for cohesive frictional materials. D93-Dissertation an der Universität Stuttgart, p 202. ISBN 2-00-014015-8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000) The statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents. Can Geotech J 37:25Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galindo-Torres S, Muñoz J, Alonso-Marroquin F (2010) Minkowski-Voronoi diagrams as a method to generate random packings of spheropolygons for the simulation of soils. Phys Rev E 82(5):056713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galindo-Torres S, Pedroso D, Williams D, Li L (2012) Breaking processes in three-dimensional bonded granular materials with general shapes. Comput Phys Commun 183(2):266–277Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galindo-Torres S et al (2012) Breaking processes in three-dimensional bonded granular materials with general shapes. Comput Phys Commun 183(2):266–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galindo-Torres S et al (2013) A micro-mechanical approach for the study of contact erosion. Acta Geotech 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11440-013-0282-z
  14. 14.
    Indraratna B, Nguyen VT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2011) Assessing the Potential of Internal Erosion and Suffusion of Granular Soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Indraratna B, Raut AK, Khabbaz H (2007) Constriction-based retention criterion for granular filter design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(3):266–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kenney T et al (1985) Controlling constriction sizes of granular filters. Can Geotech J 22(1):32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kenney T, Lau D (1985) Internal stability of granular filters. Can Geotech J 22(2):215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lind PG, Baram RM, Herrmann HJ (2008) Obtaining the size distribution of fault gouges with polydisperse bearings. Phys Rev E 77(2):021304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Locke M, Indraratna B, Adikari G (2001) Time-dependent particle transport through granular filters. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(6):521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luding S (2008) Cohesive, frictional powders: contact models for tension. Granul Matter 10(4):235–246CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mechsys homepage. Available from: http://mechsys.nongnu.org/index.shtml
  22. 22.
    Oñate E et al (2011) Advances in the particle finite element method (PFEM) for solving coupled problems in engineering. In: Oñate E, Owen R (eds) Particle-based methods. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–49Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reboul N, Vincens E, Cambou B (2010) A computational procedure to assess the distribution of constriction sizes for an assembly of spheres. Comput Geotech 37(1):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reboul N, Vincens E, Cambou B (2010) A computational procedure to assess the distribution of constriction sizes for an assembly of spheres. Comput Geotech 37:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadaghiani MS, Witt K (2011) Variability of the grain size distribution of a soil related to suffusion. In: Vogt, Schuppener, Straub, Bräu (eds) Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on geotechnical risk and safety (ISGSR) 2011, Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau. ISBN 978-3-939230-01-4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scholtès L, Hicher P-Y, Sibille L (2010) Multiscale approaches to describe mechanical responses induced by particle removal in granular materials. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 338(10):627–638CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sherard JL (1979) Sinkholes in dams of coarse, broadly graded soils. In: 13th congress on large dams. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shire T, O’Sullivan C (2013) Micromechanical assessment of an internal stability criterion. Acta Geotech 8(1):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sjah J, Vincens E (2011) A comparison of different methods to compute the constriction size distribution for granular filters. In: 13th international conference of the IACMAG. MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skempton AW, Brogan JM (1994) Experiments on piping in sandy gravels. Géotechnique 44(3):12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    To HD, Scheuermann A, Williams DJ (2012) A new simple model for the determination of the pore constriction size distribution. In: 6th international conference on scour and erosion. Societe Hydrotechnique de France, Paris, pp 60–68Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    To HD, Scheuermann A, Williams DJ (2012) A new simple model for the determination of the pore constriction size distribution. In: 6th international conference on scour and erosion (ICSE-6). Société Hydrotechnique de France (SHF)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vincens E, Witt KJ, Homberg U (2014) Approaches to determine the constriction size distribution for understanding filtration phenomena in granular materials. Acta Geotech 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11440-014-0308-1
  34. 34.
    Wan CF, Fell R (2008) Assessing the potential of internal instability and suffusion in embankment dams and their foundations. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 134:401CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huu Duc To
    • 1
  • Sergio Andres Galindo Torres
    • 2
  • Alexander Scheuermann
    • 2
  1. 1.Geotechnical Engineering Centre, School of Civil EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Geotechnical Engineering Centre, School of Civil Engineering, Research Group on Complex Processes in Geo-SystemsThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations