Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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?
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
25
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
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
0.70
0.50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
deviator strain
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.35
0.3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
deviator strain
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.06
0.05
friction
=
0.1
S11
T>
0.04
0.02
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
0.04
0.035
0.03
friction
=
0.1
S33
T>
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
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