4.7 Article

The mechanics of rigid irregular particles subject to uniaxial compression

期刊

GEOTECHNIQUE
卷 62, 期 8, 页码 681-692

出版社

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/geot.10.P.102

关键词

limit state design/analysis; friction; stiffness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-particle compression tests, in which an individual sand grain is vertically compressed between two rigid horizontal platens, are often used in particle-scale soil mechanics studies. They are useful index tests to examine the susceptibility of a given sand to particle breakage; they provide information for calibration of particulate discrete-element models that capture crushing; and they can give information on size-strength relationships. The test is conceptually simple, but the response of an irregular particle in these compression tests is not straightforward. During compression the particle can rotate. Both horizontal and vertical forces are induced at the particle-platen contacts, and so there may be frictional sliding at the contact points at the same time as, or prior to, compression of the bulk particle. Asperities can yield, changing the particle geometry. The variation in the response mechanism during compression leads to a load-deformation response that is not always easy to interpret. This paper describes two relatively simple analytical studies of an irregular particle in a particle compression test. The susceptibility of the particle to rotation under the applied compressive force is shown to depend on the particle geometry and the particle-platen friction. The rotation of the particle is shown to induce a kinematic degradation or reduction in the effective stiffness of the system, and the system stiffness depends on the particle size. Frictional sliding at the contact points will also cause a reduction in stiffness. These observations may have implications not only for the test itself, but also for the response of irregular particles participating in the strong force chains in stressed granular materials.

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

4.7
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