4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparative study of coral sand and silica sand in creep under general stress states

Journal

CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL JOURNAL
Volume 54, Issue 11, Pages 1601-1611

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2016-0295

Keywords

coral sand; creep; triaxial test; particle interlocking; grain skeleton

Funding

  1. National Science and Technology Support Program [2014BAB15B01-05]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Grant [2016M592932]
  3. Basic Research Program of China [2013CB036005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coral sand has individual characteristics that differ from silica sand, such as creep behavior that is always attributed to particle crushing under high stress states. To understand the creep behavior of coral sand under general stress levels, three series of comparative triaxial tests relevant to the deviator stress, confining pressure, and relative density were performed on coral sand and silica sand creeping for more than 5 days. The volumetric, axial, and shear creeps of coral sand are considerably larger than those of silica sand, particularly under a relatively high confining pressure. The volumetric creep strain of coral sand was found to be contractive, but that of silica sand appeared dilative according to the creep time. This difference is not mainly governed by particle crushing in coral sand because the grain-size distribution prior to and after creep is similar. The grain skeletons were observed using a scanning electron microscope, finding that, independent of the grain size and shape, the coral grains include large amounts of cavities. The creep of coral sand under general stress conditions is mainly caused by particle interlocking, i.e., the angular regions of some particles interlock into the cavities of other particles due to particle rotation. This structuration is induced by breakage of asperities and voids during creep such as the local instability near cavities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available