Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T05:31:37.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thixotropy and dilatancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

G. H. Cashen
G. H. Cashen*
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The matric potential of water in gels of five-sixths neutralized aluminium montmorillonite (bentonite) and aluminium kaolinite changes during periods of shear and periods of rest. Shear increases the potential of water in bentonite gels, and in kaolinite gels containing little water, but decreases the potential in kaolinite gels containing more water. All these effects can be explained by changes in the curvature of water films at the gel-air interface. The difference between thixotropic and dilatant behaviour is the increasing and decreasing of the water potential on shearing. In dilatant pastes of silt-size particles, and for which the effects of electric charges are small, the pressure deficiency can reach large values after an increase in pore space, and this suffices to explain the characteristic features of dilatant behaviour.

Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1966 , pp. 323 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aylmore, L.A.G. & Quirk, J.P. (1959) Nature, Lond. 183, 1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bantoft, E. (1959) Rheology of Disperse Systems. p. 105. Pergamon Press, London.Google Scholar
Baver, L.D. (1930) Soil Sci. 29, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosset, C., Biederman, G. & Sillén, L.G. (1954) Acta chem. scand. 8, 1917.Google Scholar
Burgers, J.M. & Scott Blair, G.W. (1949) Report on Principles of Rheological Nomenclature. North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Buzágh, A. SzántÓ, F. (1960) Magy kém Foly. 66, 16; Chem. Abstr. 54, 15863c.Google Scholar
Cashen, G.H. (1966) J. Soil Sci. 17, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croney, D. & Coleman, J.D. (1954) J. Soil Sci. 5, 75.Google Scholar
Day, P.R. & Ripple, C.D. (1962) Project Report. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Edwards, D.G. & Quirk, J.P. (1962) J. Colloid Sci. 17, 872.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1926) J. agric. Sci., Camb. 16, 492.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1928) J. agric. Sci., Camb. 18, 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freundlich, H. & Röder, H.L. (1938) Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 308.Google Scholar
Goodeve, C.F. (1939) Trans. Faraday Soc. 35, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, W.B. (1925) J. agric. Sci., Camb. 15, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, W.B. (1927) J. agric. Sci., Camb. 17, 264.Google Scholar
Haines, W.B. (1930) J. agric. Sci., Camb. 20, 97.Google Scholar
Low, P.F. (1960) Clays Clay Miner. 8, 710.Google Scholar
Mattson, S. (1929) Soil Sci. 28, 179.Google Scholar
Nash, V.E. (1960) Clays Clay Miner. 7, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrish, K. & Quirk, J.P. (1954) Nature, Lond. 173, 255.Google Scholar
Verwey, E.J.W. & Overbeek, J.TH.G. (1948) Theory of the Stability of Lyophobic Colloids. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vold, M.J. (1954) J. Colloid Sci. 9, 451.Google Scholar