4.6 Article

Effects of particle size of mono-disperse granular flows impacting a rigid barrier

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 1179-1201

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-018-3185-3

关键词

Geophysical flows; Rigid barrier; Impact; Discrete element method; Physical flume modelling

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Government of Hong Kong SAR, China [T22-603/15-N, 16209717]
  2. HKUST Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study
  3. Natural Science Foundation of China [E090705]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the interaction between complex geophysical flows and barriers remains a critical challenge for protecting infrastructure in mountainous regions. The scientific challenge lies in understanding how grain stresses in complex geophysical flows become manifested in the dynamic response of a rigid barrier. A series of physical flume tests were conducted to investigate the influence of varying the particle diameter of mono-dispersed flows on the impact kinematics of a model rigid barrier. Particle sizes of 3, 10, 23 and 38 mm were investigated. Physical tests results were then used to calibrate a discrete element model for carrying out numerical back-analyses. Results reveal that aside from considering bulk characteristics of the flow, such as the average velocity and bulk density, the impact load strongly depends on the particle size. The particle size influences the degree of grain inertial stresses which become manifested as sharp impulses in the dynamic response of a rigid barrier. Impact models that only consider a single impulse using the equation of elastic collision warrant caution as a cluster of coarse grains induce numerous impulses that can exceed current design recommendations by several orders of magnitude. Although these impulses are transient, they may induce local strucutral damage. Furthermore, the equation of elastic collision should be adopted when the normalized particle size with the flow depth, delta/h, is larger than 0.9 for Froude numbers less than 3.5.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据