A Comparative Study on Shear Behavior of Pure Sand and Micaceous Sand Under Undrained Monotonic and Dynamic Loading Conditions

  • P. SeethalakshmiEmail author
  • Ajanta Sachan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)


Micaceous soils are considered undesirable for the construction of earthen structures due to low compatibility, high compressibility, and low shear strength. Mica particles are platy in nature with numerous foliated intact mica flakes. They tend to bend upon loading and rebound upon unloading caused by resilient nature. When mica particles are present with sand particles, it leads to intricate geometric assemblies such as bridging, ordering, and pore-filling phenomena. Such microstructure alters the shear behavior of micaceous sand under monotonic and dynamic loading conditions. This paper evaluates the shear behavior of micaceous sand in comparison to pure sand under monotonic and dynamic loading conditions. The results exhibited that the presence of mica deteriorated the stress–strain response of micaceous sand in comparison to pure sand during monotonic compression. It also altered the pore pressure characteristics from dilative to contractive nature. However, pure sand underwent liquefaction and the presence of mica increased the cyclic stability of micaceous sand during dynamic loading with repetitive stress reversal between compression and extension modes. The uniform sand–sand interparticle contacts might provide increased interparticle bonding in pure sand under monotonic compression, while it could be vulnerable due to loss of contacts under dynamic loading conditions. The sand–mica matrix with Bridging and Ordering effect deteriorated the monotonic shear behavior of micaceous sand, whereas it improved the dynamic behavior due to particle reorientation under repeated loading cycles.


Mica Monotonic compression Dynamic behavior Bridging-ordering Resilience 



Financial Support from IIT Gandhinagar is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IIT Gandhinagar.


  1. 1.
    Belkhatir M, Arab A, Della N, Missoum H, Schanz T (2010) Influence of inter-granular void ratio on monotonic and cyclic undrained shear response of sandy soils. CR Mec 338(5):290–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Delfosse-Ribay E, Djeran-Maigre I, Cabrillac R, Gouvenot D (2004) Shear modulus and damping ratio of grouted sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(6):461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    El Shamy U, Denissen C (2012) Microscale energy dissipation mechanisms in cyclically-loaded granular soils. Geotech Geol Eng 30(2):343–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fahoum K, Aggour MS, Amini F (1996) Dynamic properties of cohesive soils treated with lime. J Geotech Eng 122(5):382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frempong EM (1994) Geotechnical properties of some residual micaceous soils in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area (Ghana). Bull Eng Geol Env 49(1):47–54Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Georgiannou VN (2006) The undrained response of sands with additions of particles of various shapes and sizes. Geotechnique 56(9):639–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Georgiannou VN (2008) Unstable behaviour of model Jamuna micaceous sand. Geotechnique 58(10):825–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris WG, Parker JC, Zelazny LW (1984) Effects of mica content on engineering properties of sand. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48(3):501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hyodo M, Hyde AF, Aramaki N (1998) Liquefaction of crushable soils. Geotechnique 48(4):527–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee JS, Guimaraes M, Santamarina JC (2007) Micaceous sands: microscale mechanisms and macroscale response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(9):1136–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nemat-Nasser S, Shokooh A (1979) A unified approach to densification and liquefaction of cohesionless sand in cyclic shearing. Can Geotech J 16(4):659–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seethalakshmi P, Sachan A (2018a) Effect of successive impact loading on compactability, microstructure, and compressibility behavior of micaceous sand. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 5(2):114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seethalakshmi P, Sachan A (2018b) Effect of mica content on pore pressure and stress-strain response of micaceous sand using energy dissipation and different failure mechanisms. Int J Geotech EngGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seethalakshmi P, Sachan A (2019) Dynamic behaviour of micaceous sand with varying mica content and its association with compactability, compressibility and monotonic shear response. Int J Geotech EngGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sitharam TG, Govindaraju L, Sridharan A (2004) Dynamic properties and liquefaction potential of soils. Curr Sci 87(10):1370–1378Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tate BD, Larew HG (1963) Effect of structure on resilient rebound characteristic of soils in the Piedmont Province of Virginia. Highway Res Rec 39:97–111Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tavenas F, Des Rosiers JP, Leroueil S, La Rochelle P, Roy M (1979) The use of strain energy as a yield and creep criterion for lightly overconsolidated clays. Geotechnique 29(3):285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Degradation of marine clays under cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng 114(2):133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voznesensky EA, Nordal S (1999) Dynamic instability of clays: an energy approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18(2):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang J, Wei LM, Dai BB (2015) State variables for silty sands: global void ratio or skeleton void ratio? Soils Found 55(1):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology GandhinagarGandhinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations