4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Polygons vs. clumps of discs: A numerical study of the influence of grain shape on the mechanical behaviour of granular materials

Journal

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
Volume 208, Issue 2, Pages 279-288

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2010.08.017

Keywords

Granular materials; DEM; Grain shape; Clumps of discs; Polygons; Shear localisation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed a series of numerical vertical compression tests on assemblies 01 20 granular material using a Discrete Element code and studied the results with regard to the grain shape. The samples consist of 5000 grains made from either 3 overlapping discs (clumps - grains with concavities) or six-edged polygons (convex grains). These two grain type have similar external envelope, which is a fund ion of a geometrical parameter alpha. In this paper, the numerical procedure applied is briefly presented followed by the description of the granular model used. Observations and mechanical analysis of dense and loose granular assemblies under isotropic loading are made. The mechanical response of our numerical granular samples is studied in the framework of the classical vertical compression test with constant lateral stress (biaxial test). The comparison of macroscopic responses of dense and loose samples with various grain shapes shows that when a is considered a concavity parameter, it is therefore a relevant variable for increasing mechanical)erformances of dense samples. When a is considered an envelope deviation from perfect sphericity, it can control mechanical performances for large strains. Finally, we present some remarks concerning the kinematics of the deformed samples: while some polygon samples subjected to a vertical compression present large damage zones (any polygon shape), dense samples made of clumps always exhibit thin reflecting shear bands. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available