Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Micromechanical behaviour in shearing of reproduced flat LBS grains with strong and weak artificial bonds

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The shearing behaviour of reproduced flat LBS grains artificially bonded with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and plaster of Paris (PP) was examined using micromechanical experiments. Monotonic shearing tests showed a distinct variation in the load–displacement relationship at low, medium and high normal loads, and a nonlinear shear strength envelope was proposed. For OPC-bonded sand grains, a brittle–ductile transition at 20–30 N normal load was observed and three breakage mechanisms in shearing (chipping, shear cracks and crushing) were distinguished in accordance with the changes in the load–displacement curves. OPC-bonded sands showed a predominant dilation at lower normal loads, whereas PP-bonded sands were highly compressive. Based on previously published works using element-scale tests, a new mechanism for dilation under micromechanical testing was proposed in the study. Cyclic shearing tests were conducted on OPC-bonded sands, and the effects of increased displacement amplitude and normal load were highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LBS:

Leighton Buzzard sand

PP:

Plaster of Paris

LBPP:

LBS bonded with PP

NCDT:

Non-contact displacement transducer

OPC:

Ordinary Portland cement

LBOC:

LBS bonded with OPC

F N :

Normal load

F T,PK :

Peak tangential load

D T :

Tangential displacement

K T,0 :

Tangnetial stiffness at small displacements

D cyc :

Displacement amplitude for cyclic shearing

S q :

Surface roughness

F T :

Tangential load

F T,SS :

Steady-state tangential load

K T :

Tangential stiffness

φ :

Friction angle

c :

Cohesion

DN :

Normal displacement

References

  1. Acar YB, El-Tahir AE (1986) Low strain dynamic properties of artificially sands. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(11):1001–1015

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alvarado G, Lui N, Coop MR (2012) Effect of fabric on the behaviour of reservoir sandstones. Can Geotech J 49(9):1036–1051

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anagnostopoulos AG, Kalteziotis N, Tsiambaos GK, Kavvadas M (1991) Geotechnical properties of the Cornith Canal marls. Geotech Geol Eng 9(1):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson J (1993) An introduction to the mechanics of soils and foundations. McGraw-Hill international series in civil engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barton N (1976) The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13(9):255–279

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barton N (2016) Non-linear shear strength for rock, rock joints, rockfill and interfaces. Innov Infrastruct Solut 1:30

    Google Scholar 

  7. Been K, Jefferies M (2004) Stress-dilatancy in very loose sand. Can Geotech J 41:972–989

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 20(1):65–78

    Google Scholar 

  9. Byerlee JD (1968) Brittle–ductile transition in rocks. J Geophys Res 73:4741–4750

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chang CS, Kabir MG (1994) Mechanics for brittle and ductile behavior of cemented sands. In: Proceedings of XIII ICSMFE, New Delhi, pp 369–372

  11. Cheung LYG, O’Sullivan C, Coop MR (2013) Discrete element method simulations of analogue reservoir sandstones. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 63:93–103

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chiu CC, Weng MC, Huang TH (2015) Biconcave bond model for cemented granular material. J GeoEng 10(3):91–103

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clough GW, Iwabuchi J, Rad NS, Kuppusamy T (1979) Silicate-stabilized sands. J Geotech Eng ASCE 105(1):65–82

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clough GW, Sitar N, Bachus RC (1981) Cemented sand under static loading. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 107(6):799–817

    Google Scholar 

  15. Consoli NC, Foppa D, Festugato L, Heineck KS (2007) Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(2):197–205

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coop MR, Atkinson JH (1993) The mechanics of cemented carbonate sands. Géotechnique 43(1):53–67

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coop MR, Wilson SM (2003) Behaviour of hydrocarbon reservoir sands and sandstones. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(11):1010–1019

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cuccovillo T, Coop MR (1999) On the mechanics of structured sands. Geotechnique 49(6):741–760

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cui MJ, Zheng JJ, Zhang RJ, Lai HJ, Zhang J (2017) Influence of cementation level on the strength behaviour of bio-cemented sand. Acta Geotech 12:971–986

    Google Scholar 

  20. Das A, Tengattini A, Nguyen G, Einav I (2013) A micromechanics based model for cemented granular materials. In: Yang Q et al (eds) Constitutive modeling of geomaterials, Springer Serier in Geomechanics Geoengineering pp. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32814-5_71

  21. de Bono J, McDowell G, Wanatowski D (2015) Investigating the micro mechanics of cemented sand using DEM. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 39(6):655–675

    Google Scholar 

  22. Duan K, Kwok CY, Ma X (2017) DEM simulations of sandstone under true triaxial compressive tests. Acta Geotech 12:495–510

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haeri SM, Hamidi A, Hosseini SM, Asghari E, Toll DG (2006) Effect of cement type on the mechanical behaviour of a gravely sand. Geotech Geol Eng J 24(2):335–360

    Google Scholar 

  24. Haeri SM, Hosseini SM, Toll DG, Yasrebi SS (2005) The behaviour of an artificially cemented sandy gravel. Geotech Geol Eng J 23(5):537–560

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hamidi A, Haeri SM (2008) Stiffness and deformation characteristics of a cemented gravely sand. Int J Civ Eng 6(3):159–173

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 106(9):1013–1025

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hoek E, Brown ET (1988) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion—a 1988 update. In: Proceedings of the 15th Canadian rock mechanics symposium, pp 31–38

  28. Jiang MJ, Jin SL, Shen ZF, Liu W, Coop MR (2015) Preliminary experimental study on three-dimensional contact behavior of bonded granules. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 26(1):012007

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang MJ, Sun YG, Li LQ, Zhu HH (2012) Contact behaviour of idealized granules bonded in two different interparticle distances: an experimental investigation. Mech Mater 55:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lade PV, Overton DD (1989) Cementation effects in frictional material. J Geotech Eng ASCE 115:1373–1387

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lade PV, Yamamuro JA (1996) Undrained sand behaviour in axisymmetric tests at high pressures. J Geotech Eng ASCE 122(4):309–316

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lambe TW (1960) A mechanical picture of shear strength in clay. In: Research conference on shear strength of cohesive soils. University Colorado Press, Boulder, CO, pp 555–580

  33. Leroueil S, Vaughan PR (1990) The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Geotechnique 40(3):467–488

    Google Scholar 

  34. Li Z, Wang YH, Ma CH, Mok CMB (2017) Experimental characterization and 3D DEM simulation of bond breakages in artificially cemented sands with different bond strengths when subjected to triaxial shearing. Acta Geotech 12:987–1002

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lo SCR, Lade PV, Wardani SPR (2003) An experimental study of the mechanics of two weakly cemented soils. Geotech Test J 26(3):328–341

    Google Scholar 

  36. Menendez B, Zhu W, Wong TF (1996) Micromechanics of brittle faulting and cataclastic flow in Brea sandstone. J Struct Geol 18(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mitchell J, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behaviour, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mogi K (1966) On the pressure dependence of strength of rocks and the Coulomb fracture criterion. Tectonophysics 21(3):273–285

    Google Scholar 

  39. Muir Wood D (2007) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Nardelli V, Coop MR (2019) The experimental contact behaviour of natural sands: normal and tangential loading. Geotechnique 69(8):672–686

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rios S, da Fonseca AV, Baudet BA (2014) On the shearing behaviour of an artificially cemented soil. Acta Geotech 9:215–226

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rowe PW (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc R Soc Lond A 269:500–527

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rowe PW, Oates DB, Skermer NA (1964) The stress-dilatancy performance of two clays. In: STP361-EB Laboratory shear testing of soils pp 134–146. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP29990S

  44. Sandeep CS, Senetakis K (2018) Grain-scale mechanics of quartz sand under normal and tangential loading. Tribol Int 117:261–271

    Google Scholar 

  45. Santamarina JC, Klein A, Fam MA (2001) Soils and waves: particulate material behaviour, characterization and process monitoring. J Soils Sedim 1(2):196

    Google Scholar 

  46. Saxena SK, Lastrico RM (1978) Static properties of lightly cemented sand. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 4(12):1449–1464

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schnaid F, Prietto PDM, Consoli NC (2001) Characterization of cemented sand in triaxial compression. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10):857–868

    Google Scholar 

  48. Senetakis K, Coop MR, Todisco MC (2013) Tangential load-deflection behaviour at the contact of soil particles. Geotech Lett 3(2):59–66

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shen B, Shi J, Barton N (2018) An approximate nonlinear modified Mohr–Coulomb shear strength criterion with critical state for intact rocks. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10:645–652

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shi Z, Jiang T, Jiang M, Liu F, Zhang N (2015) DEM investigation of weathered rocks using a novel bond contact model. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7:327–336

    Google Scholar 

  51. Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Terzis D, Laloui L (2019) Cell-free soil bio-cementation with strength, dilatancy and fabric characterization. Acta Geotech 14:639–656

    Google Scholar 

  53. Tian Y, Liu Q, Ma H, Liu Q, Deng P (2018) New peak shear strength model for cement filled rock joints. Eng Geol 233:269–280

    Google Scholar 

  54. Trivedi A (2010) Strength and dilatancy of jointed rocks with granular fill. Acta Geotech 5:15–31

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wang W, Coop MR (2016) An investigation of breakage behaviour of single sand particles using a high-speed microscope camera. Geotechnique 66(12):984–998

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wang W, Coop MR, Senetakis K (2019) The development of a micromechanical apparatus applying combined normal–shear–bending forces to natural sand grains with artificial bonds. Geotech Test J 42(4):1090–1099. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20170453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang W, Nardelli V, Coop MR (2017) Micro-mechanical behaviour of artificially cemented sands under compression and shear. Geotech Lett 7:218–224

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wang YH, Leung SC (2008) A particulate-scale investigation of cemented sand behaviour. Can Geotech J 45(1):29–44

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wang YH, Leung SC (2008) Characterization of cemented sand by experimental and numerical investigations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(7):992–1004

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wong TF, Baud P (2012) The brittle–ductile transition in porous rock: a review. J Struct Geol 44:25–53

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wu S, Zhang S, Guo C, Xiong L (2017) A generalized nonlinear failure criterion for frictional materials. Acta Geotech 12:1353–1371

    Google Scholar 

  62. Yu HS, Tan SM, Schnaid F (2007) A critical state framework for modelling bonded geomaterials. Geomech Geoeng Int J 2(1):61–74

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work described in this article was fully supported by the Grants from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, Project No. “CityU11210419” and Project No. “CityU 11214218”. The mechanical modification of the apparatus was supported by the technical staff of Engineering Workshop, Mr. Wong and Mr. Thomas, from Architecture and Civil Engineering Department at City University of Hong Kong.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    S. S. Kasyap & K. Senetakis

  2. Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College of London, London, UK

    M. R. Coop

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    J. Zhao

Authors
  1. S. S. Kasyap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Senetakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. R. Coop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Senetakis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A Crushing load tests

Crushing tests were conducted on both LBOC and LBPP specimens using a modified CBR apparatus available at City University of Hong Kong. This apparatus was used for single-particle crushing tests on various natural geological materials like LBS and CDG [55]. A representative set of 15 samples of each LBOC and LBPP specimens were tested for crushing load. From the method of specimen preparation, it is expected that the LBOC specimens have strong and hard bond, while the LBPP specimens have weak and soft bond, and this distinct bond nature influences their crushing loads and behaviour.

Figure S2 shows the comparison of load–displacement curves between LBOC and LBPP specimens. The crushing phenomenon was straightforward for LBOC specimens where they showed brittle mode of crushing, and there was a sudden drop in the normal load after the first crack was observed, whereas the LBPP particles showed ductile behaviour with hardening to be observed even after the formation of cracks. A squeezing phenomenon was observed in the plaster as the specimen was compressed, and in both the bonding types, it was the bonding material that failed the specimen but not the LBS grains. Wang et al. [56] also observed a similar phenomenon in crushing artificially bonded LBS gains. The normal load at which the first crack occurred on the OPC-bonded particles (FN = 220 N) is almost two times that of PP-bonded particles (FN = 114 N), but for a given normal load below the crushing load, the displacement is always higher for LBPP than LBOC. The higher strength and stiffness for OPC-bonded particles qualifies them to be “strong and hard cementation”, while the lower strength and stiffness for PP-bonded particles qualifies them to be “weak and soft cementation”.

1.2 B Tensile load tests

Tensile load tests were conducted on the new micromechanical loading apparatus (Sect. 3). The top and bottom grains of the specimen were glued to the respective mounts on the apparatus with a minimum normal load applied (around 0.1 N) to ensure firm contact between the specimen and the mounts. After the preparation of the cemented samples, the extension tests were conducted to measure the tensile strength of the specimens. In general, these tests showed a brittle behaviour with a sudden drop of the load after reaching a peak value. The average tensile load at which the bond breakage occurred for LBOC specimens was 1.71 N, and the breakage occurred at a very low extension of around 1.25 μm indicating the brittle nature of the bond. The normal load–extension curve for a representative specimen is shown in Figure S3, while the LBPP particles did not show any recordable tensile load during the separation of the bonding.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kasyap, S.S., Senetakis, K., Coop, M.R. et al. Micromechanical behaviour in shearing of reproduced flat LBS grains with strong and weak artificial bonds. Acta Geotech. 16, 1355–1376 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01101-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01101-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation