Thien Q. Huynh, Thanh T. Nguyen, Buddhima Indraratna, Thao Doan
{"title":"Influence of Different Cohesive Contact Models on Micro-to-Macro Response of Geomaterials: A DEM Investigation","authors":"Thien Q. Huynh, Thanh T. Nguyen, Buddhima Indraratna, Thao Doan","doi":"10.1002/nag.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cohesive contact between soil particles plays a key role in the micro- and macroscale responses of geomaterials, but the contact behavior can vary widely depending on different contexts. As our understanding of cohesive contact and the use of appropriate models when simulating cohesive materials is still limited, this study provides a comprehensive assessment of the most commonly used cohesive contact models, such as the Johnson–Kendall–Roberts (JKR), Simplified JKR (SJKR), Easo liquid bridge (ELB), and Derjaguin–Muller–Toporov (DMT) models. Not only are extensive reviews and analyses made to highlight crucial differences in the concept and mechanisms that different models utilize to govern cohesive bonds, but a series of 369 DEM simulations of the drawdown (DD) tests used by these models is also implemented. Cohesion and rolling friction degrees are varied in tandem, followed by detailed analyses of micro and macroscale features ranging from interparticle contact to bulk deformation characteristics across different cohesive models. The results show there are large differences in interparticle behavior depending on how the attractions are formed and developed, despite yielding similar macroscale responses. Soft bond models like ELB and DMT, whose attraction concentrates around the border of the contact region, result in weak bonds and less impact on structural features such as the contact network and porosity, especially under different dynamic contexts. This study significantly enhances understanding of different forms of cohesions and suggests criteria that can be used to select cohesive models, promoting accurate predictions of micro-to-macroscale responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":13786,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics","volume":"49 16","pages":"3944-3969"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/nag.70051","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nag.70051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cohesive contact between soil particles plays a key role in the micro- and macroscale responses of geomaterials, but the contact behavior can vary widely depending on different contexts. As our understanding of cohesive contact and the use of appropriate models when simulating cohesive materials is still limited, this study provides a comprehensive assessment of the most commonly used cohesive contact models, such as the Johnson–Kendall–Roberts (JKR), Simplified JKR (SJKR), Easo liquid bridge (ELB), and Derjaguin–Muller–Toporov (DMT) models. Not only are extensive reviews and analyses made to highlight crucial differences in the concept and mechanisms that different models utilize to govern cohesive bonds, but a series of 369 DEM simulations of the drawdown (DD) tests used by these models is also implemented. Cohesion and rolling friction degrees are varied in tandem, followed by detailed analyses of micro and macroscale features ranging from interparticle contact to bulk deformation characteristics across different cohesive models. The results show there are large differences in interparticle behavior depending on how the attractions are formed and developed, despite yielding similar macroscale responses. Soft bond models like ELB and DMT, whose attraction concentrates around the border of the contact region, result in weak bonds and less impact on structural features such as the contact network and porosity, especially under different dynamic contexts. This study significantly enhances understanding of different forms of cohesions and suggests criteria that can be used to select cohesive models, promoting accurate predictions of micro-to-macroscale responses.
期刊介绍:
The journal welcomes manuscripts that substantially contribute to the understanding of the complex mechanical behaviour of geomaterials (soils, rocks, concrete, ice, snow, and powders), through innovative experimental techniques, and/or through the development of novel numerical or hybrid experimental/numerical modelling concepts in geomechanics. Topics of interest include instabilities and localization, interface and surface phenomena, fracture and failure, multi-physics and other time-dependent phenomena, micromechanics and multi-scale methods, and inverse analysis and stochastic methods. Papers related to energy and environmental issues are particularly welcome. The illustration of the proposed methods and techniques to engineering problems is encouraged. However, manuscripts dealing with applications of existing methods, or proposing incremental improvements to existing methods – in particular marginal extensions of existing analytical solutions or numerical methods – will not be considered for review.