You are on page 1of 7

PEME

5312M Coursework
The effects of inter-particle friction (at
single-particle scale) on the bulk shear
strength characteristics of a three-
dimensional particulate assembly
subjected to axi-symmetric tri-axial
compression boundary loading


AND


How does internal angle of hoppers affect
granular flow?

William Fletcher Student ID: 200621883


PEME5312M

The effects of inter-particle friction (at single-particle scale) on the bulk shear strength
characteristics of a three-dimensional particulate assembly subjected to axi-symmetric
tri-axial compression boundary loading

Introduction

DEM simulations have proved to be a useful tool when analysing the behaviour of granular
materials, which display unexpected characteristics due to their complex mechanics. The
abundance of particulate materials in the modern day industries has stressed a desire to improve
the understanding of the bulk behaviour of particulate media in particular, granular materials.
Granular materials in particular behave differently from ordinary molecular fluids and solids
when flowing or stationery respectively (Antony & Sultan 2007). Surprising behaviour is often
displayed due to their complex nature at macro scale (Antony 2009).


Literature Review


Recent advances in atomic force microscopy and particle characterization techniques allow
engineers to deliver materials that have specific functionalities. Examples of this may include
particles that induce self-healing in composite materials, coated particles that control light
emission or easy flowing and hard flowing beads (Antony 2007).

The relationship between particle scale properties and macroscopic behaviour in three-
dimensional granular media that is subject to loading needs further research. It is found from
previous studies that inter-particle friction mobilizes shear strength via bimodal contribution.
This means through major and minor principle stresses (Anthony 2009). Heavily loaded contacts
(also known as strong force chains) are found to dictate the macroscopic strength
characteristics in particulate systems. These force chains work by interacting with each other at
contact points under a given boundary loading condition.

Networks of these force chains can be divided into two separate categories strong and weak
force networks. Since the distribution of forces in granular material isnt uniform, the stronger
networks carry a larger portion of the average force than the weaker contacts. The strong
contacts form a solid-like backbone for transmitting forces, while the weak forces provide
stability against buckling to the strong chains (Antony 2009). These interparticle contacts
transmit forces from one boundary to another. This means that the distribution of forces within a
particle system depends on the distribution of interparticle contacts (Antony 2007).

Previous studies suggest that the normal components of the contact force provide the largest
contribution towards the deviatoric stress and are aligned along the principle stress direction.
The contacts that slide are mostly in the weak chain and contribute mainly to the hydrostatic
stress with negligible deviatoric stress (Antony 2007).

In three-dimensional media there is a strong correlation between shear strength and directional
anisotropy in the strong contact alignment. The ability to create these strong networks is
governed by particle-scale properties and packing fraction (Antony 2009).

Neither the nature of distribution of contact force or a perfect physical model has been found to
capture the mechanics of granular materials. This is required in order to gain an understanding
at macroscopic scale of the non-uniform particle characteristics (Antony 2007).

The Discrete Element Method (DEM) is used capture the critical state characteristics of granular
material. Fundamental interactions that determine the macroscopic behaviour can be analysed
under a range of loading conditions (Huang 2014)(Antony 2009). Recent studies using DEM have
shown that shear strength of granular systems depends mainly on the normal forces at particle

contacts and slightly dependent on the contribution from tangential contact forces (Antony
2009).


Results & Discussion

The weak and strong stress contact contributions are shown in figures 2-5 by the notation <
and > respectively, while the subscript N and T mean normal and tangential. For example,
normal weak contact forces contributing to major principle stresses are shown by:

!!
!!


Therefore the major principle stress (which is a summation of normal weak and strong contact
forces) would be:
!
!!
!!
!!
= !!
+ !!


A similar equation exists for the tangential forces, where T replaces subscript N.

Figures 2-3 including the results are listed in the appendix at the back of the report.

It is evident from figure 2 that as the interparticle friction is increased, the normal stress
contribution from strong contacts (N>) towards the major principle stresses increases. As the
deviator strain is increased (during shearing), the stress contribution from strong contacts
increases initially but then decreases after further strain. The contribution of normal stresses
from the weak contacts to the minor principle stresses decreases with interparticle friction as
shown by figure 3. The stress contribution towards minor principle stresses remains constant as
the deviator strain is increased.
In both figures 2 and 3, the stress contribution from weak contacts to major and minor principle
stresses remains the same (approximating around 0.37). This shows that the role of interparticle
friction is independent on the weak contacts as there is no change in data for !! and !! .

This also suggests that weak contact stresses are independent of major and minor principle
stress.

In terms of tangential forces, the magnitude of weak & strong forces contributing to major
principle stresses is approximately tenfold less than for normal forces. For minor principle
stresses, this value is even smaller (approximately 5% as opposed to 10%). Both figures 4 & 5 are
very similar, just the magnitudes differ substantially.
Furthermore, in both figures 4 and 5 the interparticle friction increases the contribution of stress
from strong contacts to the major principle stresses.

Conclusion

Interparticle friction increases the normal and tangential contribution of strong contact
stresses towards the major principle stress.
Interparticle friction does not affect the weak contact stress contribution towards major
or minor principle stresses.
The normal weak contact stress contribution stays constant towards both major and
minor principle stresses.










How does internal angle of hoppers affect granular flow?

Introduction & Literature Review


Powders and grains exhibit both solid and liquid characteristics due to their complex mechanics,
which although has been studied, there is still little understanding. Previous studies have
suggested that even fee flowing materials have shown significant resistance to flow when passing
through a smooth hoper at different internal angles. Correlations between theoretical
suggestions and experimental results prove to be successful (Albaraki 2014).

Flow properties are researched by several industries including the pharmaceutical industry, civil
engineering, food processing and more. Granular materials due to their complex mechanical
behaviour exhibit surprising characteristics. Forces are transmitted through groups inter-
particle contacts called strong and weak networks. Strong networks mainly govern the
behaviour of the material because they carry the majority of the force. Experimental and
theoretical results correlate, suggesting that the internal angle of the orifice section in hopper s
has a strong influence on the spatial and temporal distributions of shear stress.

With respect to the Silo/hoppers, bulk density is affected by the varying normal and shear
stresses along the wall boundaries which is determined by the way the grains are discharged
(Albaraki 2014).

In order to understand the flow of particulates (i.e. the affect of particle density on the discharge
rate), a sensitivity analysis must be performed using the Rose and Tanaka equation. 4 cases of
internal hopper angle were explored. The Rose and Tanaka equation is as follows (Albaraki
2014):

!.!

= 0.16 !.!
3
() 5 !!.! (1)


and
!!.!"
=
(2)
2

= tan 90 !!.!" (3)

where W is the granular discharge rate, D is the diameter of the hopper, d is the average particle
diameter, f () is is the bulk density, is the bulk solid static angle of repose, Z is the particle
shape factor, g is the acceleration of gravity, d is the average particle diameter.

Results & Discussion

In order to compare the results for the densities provided, certain parameters for both the
results in previous studies (Albaraki 2014) and the theoretical estimate must be kept the same:

Table 1 Summary of parameters used

Symbol
Z
D

g
d

Parameter
Particle shape factor
hopper outlet diameter (orifice diameter)/m
Solid bulk density/ kg/m3
gravity/ms-2
Average particle diameter/m
Angle of internal friction

Value
6
0.0070
443
9.81
0.0007
39

By altering the bulk density for a variety of angles it is possible to see what effect this has on the
granular discharge rate W. Two clear results are shown from the results:

As the hopper angle increases from 0-90, the granular discharge rate decreases.
Previous studies suggest that the type of flow changes from mass flow to funnel flow as
the hopper angle increases as the extent of angular shift increases in their velocity
profiles. This causes the flow to also become less vertically uniform due to localised
flow-resistance zones form along the hopper boundaries. At particularly high hopper
angles (i.e. 90), secondary and tertiary flow fields are produced (Albaraki 2014).
As the density is increased (or the density multiplier), the granular material discharge
rate increases, but the trend with hopper angle remains the same.
There is a close correlation between the theoretical trend line for 443 kg/m3 and the
experimental result. This shows that the Rose and Tanaka equation provides a good
estimate of the behaviour expected by granular material at different hopper angles.

30

Granular material dishcarge rate g/s

25

443 kg/m3 (experimental)


20

4430 kg/m3
2215 kg/3
886 kg/m3

15

443 kg/m3
221.5 kg/m3
10

44.3 kg/m3
110.75 kg/m3
4.43 kg/m3

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Internal hoppe angle/degrees

Figure 1 Graph of granular material discharge against internal hopper angle (includes experimental
data from Antony 2014)


Conclusion

Increasing the hopper angle from 0-90 decreases the granular discharge rate and
decreases the uniformity of the individual flow velocity profiles.
Increasing the density increases the granular material discharge rate.
The Rose & Tanaka equation is a useful tool that provides a good estimate to granular
flow in hoppers.

References

Albaraki, S., Antony, S.J., 2014, How does internal angle of hoppers affect granular flow?
Experimental studies using digital particle image velocimetry, Powder Technology [Online], 268
(), pp. 253-260 [Accessed 20th November 2014]. Available from: http://ac.els-

cdn.com/S003259101400727X/1-s2.0-S003259101400727X-main.pdf?_tid=fd832888-718f-
11e4-bf17-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1416582577_b8c04fd77ab279500962a0fb348cd0b9
Antony, S.J., 2007, Link between single-particle properties and macroscopic properties in
particulate assemblies: role of structures within structures, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A [Online], [Accessed 18th November 2014]. Available from: http://0-
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org.wam.leeds.ac.uk/content/365/1861/2879.abstract
Antony, S.J., Kruyt, N.P., 2009, Role of interparticle friction and particle-scale elasticity in the
shear-strength mechanism of three-dimensional granular media, Physical Review E, 79 ().
Antony, S.J., Sultan, M.A., 2007, Role of interparticle forces and interparticle friction on
the bulk friction in charged granular media subjected to shearing, Physical Review, 75 (3)

Huang, X., 2014, Exploring the influence of interparticle friction on critical state behaviour using
DEM, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics [Online], 38
(12), pp.1276-1297 [Accessed 19th November 2014]. Available from: http://0-
onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/10.1002/nag.2259/full


Appendix

s11 normal stress/mean stress

1.30

1.10
friction = 0.1 S11 N>
0.90

friction = 0.25 S11 N>


friction = 0.5 S11 N>

0.70

friction = 0.1 S11 N<


friction = 0.25 S11 N<

0.50

friction = 0.5 S11 N<


0.30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

deviator strain

Figure 2 Graph of major normal stress against deviator strain

0.65

s33 normal stress/mean stress

0.6
0.55

friction = 0.1 S33 N>

0.5

friction = 0.25 S33 N>


friction = 0.5 S33 N>

0.45

friction = 0.1 S33 N>


0.4

friction = 0.25 S33 N>

0.35

friction = 0.5 S33 N<

0.3
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

deviator strain

Figure 3 Graph of minor normal stress against deviator strain

0.4

0.45

0.5

s11 tangetial stress/mean stress

0.06
0.05
friction = 0.1 S11 T>

0.04

friction = 0.25 S11 T>


0.03

friction = 0.5 S11 T>


friction = 0.1 S11 T<

0.02

friction = 0.25 S11 T<


0.01

friction = 0.5 S11 T<

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

deviator strain


Figure 3 Graph of major tangential stress against deviator strain

11 tangetial stress/mean stress

0.04
0.035
0.03
friction = 0.1 S33 T>

0.025

friction = 0.25 S33 T>

0.02

friction = 0.5 S33 T>

0.015

friction = 0.1 S33 T<

0.01

friction = 0.25 S33 T<

0.005

friction = 0.5 S33 T<

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

deviator strain


Figure 4 Graph of minor tangential stress against deviator strain

0.4

0.45

0.5

You might also like