Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1883–1904 | Cite as

An experimental study on the micromechanical behavior of pumice

  • H. He
  • K. SenetakisEmail author
Research Paper
First Online:
  • 175 Downloads

Abstract

Pumice has a large potential to be used in structural and geotechnical engineering projects as a lightweight aggregate, and it is a material of unique characteristics. Gravel-sized pumice from Yunnan, China, was examined in the present study with a custom-built micromechanical apparatus investigating the properties of pairs of grains at their interfaces subjected to monotonic and cyclic tests under different saturation states. Based on interferometer measurements, the vesicular surface of the pumice was characterized to be very rough. From the interface micromechanical experiments, it was shown that the virgin surfaces appeared to be very soft under normal loading tests, during which micro-asperity breakage was caused. After preloading and preshearing, the normal load–displacement curves became much smoother and the Young’s moduli, which remained relatively low in magnitude compared with other geo-materials previously studied, could be quantified applying the Hertzian model. Large hysteretic loops were observed from cyclic normal load tests. Plastic displacements dominated the first normal loading cycle, while elastic displacements prevailed in the subsequent cycles. High values of the apparent coefficient of friction were observed from the monotonic shearing tests. A modification of the power value of the Mindlin and Deresiewicz model was necessary to be applied during the fitting of the experimental data so that theoretical and laboratory curves could match. It was shown that this power had a direct correlation with the coefficient of friction.

Keywords

Friction Grain scale testing Interface properties Micromechanics Pumice Stiffness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, Project no. “CityU 11206617.”

References

  1. 1.
    Bolen WP (2003) Pumice and pumicite. US Geological Survey Minerals YearbookGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolton M (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique 36(1):65–78Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cavarretta I, Coop MR, O’Sullivan C (2010) The influence of particle characteristics on the behavior of coarse grained soils. Géotechnique 60(6):413–423Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavarretta I, Rocchi I, Coop MR (2011) A new interparticle friction apparatus for granular materials. Can Geotech J 48(12):1829–1840Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole DM, Hopkins MA (2017) The contact properties of naturally occurring geologic materials: contact law development. Granular Matter 19(1):5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole DM, Mathisen LU, Hopkins MA, Knapp BR (2010) Normal and sliding contact experiments on gneiss. Granular Matter 12:69–86Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cole DM, Peters JF (2007) A physically based approach to granular media mechanics: grain-scale experiments, initial results and implications to numerical modeling. Granular Matter 9:309–321Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cole DM, Peters JF (2008) Grain-scale mechanics of geologic materials and lunar simulants under normal loading. Granular Matter 10:171–185Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dieterich JH, Conrad G (1984) Effect of humidity on time-and velocity-dependent friction in rocks. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 89(B6):4196–4202Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher RV, Schmincke H-U (1984) Pyroclastic rocks. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Founie A (2005) Pumice and pumicite. US Geological Survey Minerals Year Book, pp 128–129Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frye KM, Marone C (2002) Effect of humidity on granular friction at room temperature. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 107(B11):ETG11-1–ETG11-13Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gao L, Li H, Xie J, Yang X (2017) Mixed-mode fracture modeling of cold recycled mixture using discrete element method. Constr Build Mater 151:625–635Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gu M, Han J, Zhao M (2017) Three-dimensional DEM analysis of single geogrid-encased stone columns under unconfined compression: a parametric study. Acta Geotech 12(3):559–572Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hertz H (1882) Uber die beruhrang fester elastischer korper (on the contact of elastic solids). Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 92:156–171zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hossain KMA, Ahmed S, Lachemi M (2011) Lightweight concrete incorporating pumice based blended cement and aggregate: mechanical and durability characteristics. Constr Build Mater 25(3):1186–1195Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hossain KMA (2004) Properties of volcanic pumice based cement and lightweight concrete. Cem Concr Res 34(2):283–291Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hossain KMA (2008) Bond characteristics of plain and deformed bars in lightweight pumice concrete. Constr Build Mater 22(7):1491–1499Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang X, Hanley KJ, O’Sullivan C, Kwok CY (2014) Exploring the influence of interparticle friction on critical state behaviour using DEM. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 38(12):1276–1297Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kikkawa N, Orense RP, Pender MJ (2013) Observations on microstructure of pumice particles using computed tomography. Can Geotech J 50(11):1109–1117Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klug C, Cashman K, Bacon C (2002) Structure and physical characteristics of pumice from the climactic eruption of Mount Mazama (Crater Lake). Oregon. Bulletin of Volcanology 64(7):486–501Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lim W, McDowell G (2005) Discrete element modelling of railway ballast. Granular Matter 7(1):19–29zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luding S (2008) Cohesive, frictional powders: contact models for tension. Granular Matter 10:235–246zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mindlin RD, Deresiewicz H (1953) Elastic spheres in contact under varying oblique forces. J Appl Mech 20:327–344MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nardelli V (2017) An experimental investigation of the micromechanical contact behavior of soils. Ph.D. thesis, Architecture and Civil Engineering Department, City University of Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nardelli V, Coop MR, Andrade JE, Paccagnella F (2017) An experimental investigation of the micromechanics of Eglin sand. Powder Technol 312:166–174Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ng T-T (2006) Input parameters of discrete element methods. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 132(7):723–729Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Sullivan C (2011) Particulate discrete element modelling: A geomechanics perspective. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Orense R, Pender M, Hyodo M, Nakata Y (2013) Micro-mechanical properties of crushable pumice sands. Géotech Lett 3(2):67–71Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pender M, Wesley L, Larkin T, Pranjoto S (2006) Geotechnical properties of a pumice sand. Soils Found 46(1):69–81Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sandeep CS, Senetakis K (2017) Exploring the micromechanical sliding behavior of typical quartz grains and completely decomposed volcanic granules subjected to repeating shearing. Energies 10(3):370Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sandeep CS, Senetakis K (2018) Effect of young’s modulus and surface roughness on the inter-particle friction of granular materials. Materials 11:217Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sandeep CS, Senetakis K (2018) Micromechanical experiments using a new inter-granule loading apparatus for gravel-to-ballast sized materials. Friction.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-018-0243-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sandeep CS, Senetakis K (2018) Grain-scale mechanics of quartz sand under normal and tangential loading. Tribol Int 117:261–271Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sandeep CS, Senetakis K (2018) The tribological behavior of two potential-landslide saprolitic rocks. Pure appl Geophys 175:1–17Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sandeep CS, He H, Senetakis K (2018) An experimental micromechanical study of sand grain contacts behavior from different geological environments. Eng Geol 246:176–186Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sandeep CS, Todisco M, Nardelli V, Senetakis K, Coop M, Lourenco S (2018) A micromechanical experimental study of highly/completely decomposed tuff granules. Acta Geotech 13(6):1355–1367Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandeep CS, Todisco MC, Senetakis K (2017) Tangential contact behaviour of weathered volcanic landslide material from Hong Kong. Soils Found 57:1097–1103Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Senetakis K, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K, Coop MR (2013) The dynamics of a pumice granular soil in dry state under isotropic resonant column testing. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 45:70–79Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Senetakis K, Coop MR (2014) The development of a new micro-mechanical inter-particle loading apparatus. Geotech Test J 37(6):1028–1039Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walton OR, Braun RL (1986) Viscosity, granular-temperature, and stress calculations for shearing assemblies of inelastic, frictional disks. J Rheol 30(5):949–980Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Walton OR, Johnson SM (2009) Simulating the effects of interparticle cohesion in micron-scale powders. AIP Conf Proc 1145:897–900Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Whitham A, Sparks R (1986) Pumice. Bull Volc 48(4):209–223Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yan Z, Wilkinson S, Stitt E, Marigo M (2015) Discrete element modelling (DEM) input parameters: understanding their impact on model predictions using statistical analysis. Comput Part Mech 2(3):283–299Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yang L, Wang D, Guo Y, Liu S (2016) Tribological behaviors of quartz sand particles for hydraulic fracturing. Tribol Int 102:485–496Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Yeung Kin Man Academic Building, Blue Zone 6/FCity University of Hong KongKowloonChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options