4.7 Article

Characterizing chaotic dynamics from simulations of large strain behavior of a granular material under biaxial compression

Journal

CHAOS
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.4790833

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Hong Kong University Grants Council [PolyU 5262/11E]
  2. US Army Research Office [W911NF-11-1-0175]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0986876, DP120104759]
  4. Melbourne Energy Institute
  5. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT110100896]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For a given observed time series, it is still a rather difficult problem to provide a useful and compelling description of the underlying dynamics. The approach we take here, and the general philosophy adopted elsewhere, is to reconstruct the (assumed) attractor from the observed time series. From this attractor, we then use a black-box modelling algorithm to estimate the underlying evolution operator. We assume that what cannot be modeled by this algorithm is best treated as a combination of dynamic and observational noise. As a final step, we apply an ensemble of techniques to quantify the dynamics described in each model and show that certain types of dynamics provide a better match to the original data. Using this approach, we not only build a model but also verify the performance of that model. The methodology is applied to simulations of a granular assembly under compression. In particular, we choose a single time series recording of bulk measurements of the stress ratio in a biaxial compression test of a densely packed granular assembly-observed during the large strain or so-called critical state regime in the presence of a fully developed shear band. We show that the observed behavior may best be modeled by structures capable of exhibiting (hyper-) chaotic dynamics. (C) 2013 American Institute of Physics. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4790833]

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