不同粘性接触模型对岩土材料微宏观响应的影响:DEM研究

IF 3.6 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
Thien Q. Huynh, Thanh T. Nguyen, Buddhima Indraratna, Thao Doan
{"title":"不同粘性接触模型对岩土材料微宏观响应的影响:DEM研究","authors":"Thien Q. Huynh,&nbsp;Thanh T. Nguyen,&nbsp;Buddhima Indraratna,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Different Cohesive Contact Models on Micro-to-Macro Response of Geomaterials: A DEM Investigation\",\"authors\":\"Thien Q. Huynh,&nbsp;Thanh T. Nguyen,&nbsp;Buddhima Indraratna,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

土壤颗粒之间的粘性接触在岩土材料的微观和宏观响应中起着关键作用,但接触行为可能因不同的环境而有很大差异。由于我们对黏性接触的理解和在模拟黏性材料时使用合适的模型仍然有限,本研究对最常用的黏性接触模型,如Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR), Simplified JKR (SJKR), Easo液体桥(ELB)和Derjaguin-Muller-Toporov (DMT)模型进行了全面评估。不仅进行了广泛的审查和分析,以突出不同模型用于管理内聚键的概念和机制的关键差异,而且还实施了这些模型使用的一系列369个DEM模拟降降(DD)测试。黏聚力和滚动摩擦程度是串联变化的,然后详细分析了不同黏聚力模型的微观和宏观特征,包括颗粒间接触和整体变形特征。结果表明,尽管产生相似的宏观尺度响应,但根据吸引力的形成和发展方式,粒子间行为存在很大差异。如ELB和DMT等软键模型,其吸引力集中在接触区域的边界附近,导致键弱,对接触网络和孔隙度等结构特征的影响较小,特别是在不同的动态环境下。该研究显著增强了对不同形式内聚的理解,并提出了可用于选择内聚模型的标准,促进了微观到宏观尺度反应的准确预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Influence of Different Cohesive Contact Models on Micro-to-Macro Response of Geomaterials: A DEM Investigation

Influence of Different Cohesive Contact Models on Micro-to-Macro Response of Geomaterials: A DEM Investigation

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
160
审稿时长
9 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信