Advertisement

Effects of particle sphericity and initial fabric on the shearing behavior of soil–rough structural interface

  • Wan-Huan Zhou
  • Xue-Ying JingEmail author
  • Zhen-Yu Yin
  • Xueyu Geng
Research Paper
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, the effects of particle sphericity and initial fabric on the shearing behavior of soil-structural interface were analyzed by discrete element method (DEM). Three types of clustered particles were designed to represent irregular particles featuring various sphericities. The extreme porosities of granular materials composed of various clustered particles were affected by particle sphericity. Moreover, five specimens consisting of differently oriented particles were prepared to study the effect of initial fabric. A series of interface shear tests featuring varying interface roughnesses were carried out using three-dimensional (3D) DEM simulations. The macro-response showed that the shear strength of the interface increased as particle sphericity decreased, while stress softening and dilatancy were easily observed during the shearing. From the particle-scale analysis, it was found that the thickness of the localized band was affected by the interface roughness, the normal stress and the initial fabric while independent of the particle sphericity. The thickness generally ranged between 4 and 6 times that of the median particle equivalent diameter. A thicker localized band was formed in the case of rougher interface and in soil composed of inclined placed and randomly placed particles. The coordination number measured in the interface zone and upper zone suggested that the dilation mostly occurs inside the interface zone. Anisotropy was induced by the interface shearing of the initial isotropic specimens. The direction of shear-induced anisotropy correlates with the shearing direction. The evolutions of anisotropies for the anisotropic specimens depend on the initial fabric.

Keywords

Discrete element method Initial fabric Interface roughness Particle sphericity effect Soil-structural interface 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the financial support from the Macau Science and Technology Development Fund (FDCT) (125/2014/A3), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51508585/51678319), the University of Macau Research Fund (MYRG2017-00198-FST, MYRG2015-00112-FST) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Research and Innovation Staff Exchange Programme (Grant No. 778360).

References

  1. 1.
    Ai J, Chen JF, Rotter JM, Ooi JY (2011) Assessment of rolling resistance models in discrete element simulations. Powder Technol 206(3):269–282Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barreto D, O’Sullivan C, Zdravkovic L (2009) Quantifying the evolution of soil fabric under different stress paths. In: AIP conference proceedings, London, pp 181–84Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bono JP, Mcdowell GR (2015) An insight into the yielding and normal compression of sand with irregularly-shaped particles using DEM. Powder Technol 271:270–277Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang CS, Yin ZY (2009) Micromechanical modeling for inherent anisotropy in granular materials. J Eng Mech 136(7):830–839Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen X, Zhang J, Xiao Y, Li J (2015) Effect of roughness on shear behavior of red clay—concrete interface in large-scale direct shear tests. Can Geotech J 52(8):1122–1135Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho GC, Dodds J, Santamarina JC (2006) Particle shape effects on packing density, stiffness and strength: natural and crushed sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(5):591–602Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coetzee CJ (2016) Calibration of the discrete element method and the effect of particle shape. Powder Technol 297:50–70Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29(1):47–65Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dejong JT, White D, Randolph MF (2006) Microscale observation and modeling of soil-structure interface behavior using particle image. Soils Found 46(1):15–28Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frost JD, Dejong JT, Recalde M (2002) Shear failure behavior of granular-continuum interfaces. Eng Fract Mech 69(17):2029–2048Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hossain MA, Yin JH (2014) Behavior of a pressure-grouted soil-cement interface in direct shear tests. Int J Geomech 14(1):101–109Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu LM, Pu JL (2005) Testing and modeling of soil-structure interface. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(8):851–860Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iwashita K, Oda M (1998) Rolling resistance at contacts in simulation of shear band development by DEM. J Eng Mech 124(3):285–292Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jensen RP, Bosscher PJ, Plesha ME, Edil TB (1999) DEM simulation of granular media-structure interface: effects of surface roughness and particle shape. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 23(6):531–547zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang M, Yin ZY (2012) Analysis of stress redistribution in soil and earth pressure on tunnel lining using the discrete element method. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 32:251–259Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jiang M, Yin ZY (2014) Influence of soil conditioning on ground deformation during longitudinal tunneling. CR Mec 342(3):189–197Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jing XYWH, Zhou HXZhu, Yin ZY (2018) Analysis of soil-structural interface behavior using three-dimensional DEM simulations. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 42(2):339–357Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jing XY, Zhou WH, Li YM (2017) Interface direct shearing behavior between soil and saw-tooth surfaces by DEM simulation. Procedia engineering. Delft, The Netherlands, pp 36–42Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krumbein WCh, Sloss LL (1951) Stratigraphy and sedimentation. LWWGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin X, Ng TT (1997) A three-dimensional discrete element model using arrays of ellipsoids. Géotechnique 47(2):319–329Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu M, Mcdowell GR (2007) The importance of modelling ballast particle shape in the discrete element method. Granular Matter 9(1–2):69–80Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mindlin RD, Deresiewicz H (1953) Elastic spheres in contact under varying oblique forces. J Appl Mech 20:327–344MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miura K, Maeda K, Furukawa M, Toki S (1998) Mechanical characteristics of sands with different primary properties. Soils Found 38(4):159–172Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakata Y et al (2001) One-dimensional compression behaviour of uniformly graded sand related to single particle crushing strength. Soils Found 41(2):39–51MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ni Q, Powrie W, Zhang X, Harkness R (2000) Effect of particle properties on soil behavior: 3-D numerical modeling of shearbox tests. In: Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, pp 58–70Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ochiai H, Otani J, Hayashic S, Hirai T (1996) The pull-out resistance of geogrids in reinforced soil. Geotext Geomembr 14(1):19–42Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oda M, Nemat-Nasser S, Konishi J (1985) Stress-induced anisotropy in granular masses. Soils Found 25(3):85–97Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paikowsky SG, Player CM, Connors PJ (1995) A dual interface apparatus for testing unrestricted friction of soil along solid surfaces. ASTM Geotech Test J 18(2):168–193Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peng SY, Ng CWW, Zheng G (2014) The dilatant behaviour of sand-pile interface subjected to loading and stress relief. Acta Geotech 9(3):425–437Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pra-ai S, Boulon M (2017) Soil-structure cyclic direct shear tests: a new interpretation of the direct shear experiment and its application to a series of cyclic tests. Acta Geotech 12(1):107–127Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rao KSS, Allam MM, Robinson RG (1998) Interfacial friction between sands and solid surfaces. In: Proceedings of the ICE–geotechnical engineering, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rothenburg L, Bathurst RJ (1992) Micromechanical features of granular assemblies with planar elliptical particles. Géotechnique 42(1):79–95Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Salot C, Gotteland P, Villard P (2009) Influence of relative density on granular materials behavior: DEM simulations of triaxial tests. Granular Matter 11(4):221–236zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Santamarina JC, Cho GC (2004) Soil behaviour: the role of particle shape. In: Advances in geotechnical engineering: the Skempton conference, London, pp 604–17Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Satake M (1992) A discrete-mechanical approach to granular materials. Int J Eng Sci 30(10):1525–1533Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Su LJ, Yin JH, Zhou WH (2010) Influences of overburden pressure and soil dilation on soil nail pull-out resistance. Comput Geotech 37(4):555–564Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Su LJ, Zhou WH, Chen WB, Jie X (2018) Effects of relative roughness and mean particle size on the shear strength of sand-steel interface. Measurement 122:339–346Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Frictional resistance at yield between dry sand and mild steel. Soils Found 26(4):139–149Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sands. Soils Found 26(2):33–46Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Uesugi M, Kishida H, Tsubakihara Y (1988) Behavior of sand particles in sand-steel friction. Soils Found 28(1):107–118Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang HL, Chen RP, Liu QW, Kang X, Wang YW (2019) Soil–geogrid interaction at various influencing factors by pullout tests with applications of FBG sensors. J Mater Civil Eng 31(1):04018342Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang J, Gutierrez MS, Dove JE (2007) Numerical studies of shear banding in interface shear tests using a new strain calculation method. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 31(12):1349–1366zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang J, Jiang M (2011) Unified soil behavior of interface shear test and direct shear test under the influence of lower moving boundaries. Granular Matter 13(5):631–641Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wensrich CM, Katterfeld A (2012) Rolling friction as a technique for modelling particle shape in DEM. Powder Technol 217:409–417Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wood DM, Maeda K (2007) Changing grading of soil: effect on critical states. Acta Geotech 3(1):3–14Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu XY, Yang J (2016) Direct shear tests of the interface between filling soil and bedrock of Chongqing airport. In: Advances in civil, envrionmental, and materials research (ACEM16), Jeju IslandGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yin JH, Zhou WH (2009) Influence of grouting pressure and overburden stress on the interface resistance of a soil nail. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(9):1198–1208Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yin ZY, Chang CS, Hicher PY (2010) Micromechanical modelling for effect of inherent anisotropy on cyclic behaviour of sand. Int J Solids Struct 47(14):1933–1951zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhao LS, Zhou WH, Yuen KV (2017) A simplified axisymmetric model for column supported embankment systems. Comput Geotech 92:96–107Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhou J, Gong X, Wang K, Zhang R (2018) Shaft capacity of the pre-bored grouted planted pile in dense sand. Acta Geotech 13(5):1227–1239Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhou WH, Yin JH (2008) A simple mathematical model for soil nail and soil interaction analysis. Comput Geotech 35(3):479–488Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhou WH, Yin JH, Hong CY (2011) Finite element modelling of pullout testing on a soil nail in a pullout box under different overburden and grouting pressures. Can Geotech J 48(4):557–567Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhou WH, Yuen KV, Tan F (2013) Estimation of maximum pullout shear stress of grouted soil nails using bayesian probabilistic approach. Int J Geomech 13(5):659–664Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhu HX, Zhou WH, Yin ZY (2018) Deformation mechanism of strain localization in 2D numerical interface tests. Acta Geotech 13:557–573Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of MacauMacauChina
  2. 2.Zhuhai UM Science and Technology Research InstituteZhuhaiChina
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, KowloonChina
  4. 4.Geotechnical Engineering School of Engineering (F332)The University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations