Submitted:
30 August 2023
Posted:
31 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Preparation
2.3. Approach
3. Results
3.1. Compaction Curve
3.2. Dry Density
3.3. Moisture Content
3.4. Coupling effect of dry density and moisture content
4. Discussion
4.1. Mechanism of adhesion on the dry-side
4.2. Mechanism of adhesion on the OMC
4.3. Mechanism of adhesion on the wet-side
4.4. Matric Suction Role
5. Conclusions
References
- Fountaine, E. , Investigations into the mechanism of soil adhesion. Journal of soil science, 1954, 5, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, J. , et al, Characteristics of adhesion between soil and solid surfaces. Journal of Terramechanics, 1994, 31, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alberto-Hernandez, Y. , et al, Clogging potential of tunnel boring machine (TBM): a review. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2018, 12, 316–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X. , Theoretical analysis of the adhesion force of soil to solid materials. Biosystems engineering, 2004, 87, 489–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soni, P. and V.M. Salokhe, Theoretical analysis of microscopic forces at soil-tool interfaces: a review. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sass, I. and U. Burbaum, A method for assessing adhesion of clays to tunneling machines. Bulletin of engineering geology and the environment 2009, 68, 27–34. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J., Z. Sang, and L. Gao, Adhesion and friction between soils and solids. Nung yeh chi hsieh hsueh pao= Transactions of the Chinese society of agricultural machinery 1986.
- Liu, P. , et al, Tangential adhesion strength between clay and steel for various soil softnesses. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2019, 31, 04019048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhushan, B. , Adhesion and stiction: mechanisms, measurement techniques, and methods for reduction. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena, 2003, 21, 2262–2296. [Google Scholar]
- Satomi, T., H. Nihei, and H. Takahashi. Investigation on characteristics of soil adhesion to metallic material surface and soil animal’s cuticle. in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Experimental Mechanics. 2012.
- Sladen, J. , The adhesion factor: applications and limitations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1992, 29, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thewes, M. and W. Burger, Clogging of TBM drives in clay–identification and mitigation of risks. Underground space 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, J. , et al, Destructuring and disaggregation of Mercia Mudstone during full-face tunnelling. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 2003, 36, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jancsecz, S., R. Krause, and L. Langmaack, Advantages of soil conditioning in shield tunnelling: experiences of LRTS Izmir. Challenges for the 21st Century, Alten et al (eds), 1999: p. 865-875.
- Basmenj, A.K. , et al, Assessment of the adhesion potential of kaolinite and montmorillonite using a pull-out test device. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2016, 76, 1507–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zumsteg, R. and A.M. Puzrin, Stickiness and adhesion of conditioned clay pastes. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2012, 31, 86–96. [CrossRef]
- Azadegan, B. and J. Massah, Effect of temperature on adhesion of clay soil to steel. Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova, 2012, 45, 21–27. [CrossRef]
- Burbaum, U. and I. Sass, Physics of adhesion of soils to solid surfaces. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2017, 76, 1097–1105. [CrossRef]
















| Mineral | Mass Percentage |
|---|---|
| Kaolinite | 83.7 |
| Muscovite | 14.0 |
| Quartz | 2.3 |
| Properties | Value |
|---|---|
| Specific gravity (Gs) | 2.58 |
| LL (%) | 74 |
| PL (%) | 32 |
| PI (%) | 42 |
| Cation exchange capacity (CEC) (meq/100g) | 0.075 |
| Total surface area (m2/g) | 20 |
| Surface charge density (µC/m2) | 0.36 |
| Silicate SiO2 | 45.2 |
| Aluminium Al2O3 | 38.8 |
| Wc (%) | 10 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 40 | 50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of blows | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | |
| 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | |
| 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | |
| 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 |
| Dry-side | Wet-side | |
|---|---|---|
| Wc (%) | 10 ~ 30 | 30 ~ 50 |
| Ꝩd (g/cm3) | 1.19 Increase to 1.48 | 1.48 Decrease to 1.26 |
| Sr (%) | 22 Increase to 95 | 95 Increase to 100 |
| Su (pF) | 4.71 Decrease to 3.72 | 3.72 Decrease to 2.17 |
| α (kPa) | 64 Decrease to 45 | 45 Decrease to 3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).