Fig 1.
Two ellipsoidal particles in contact.
Table 1.
Parameters used in the simulations.
Fig 2.
Different ellipsoidal particles with De = 6.30 mm used in the discrete element simulations.
(a) P1: Ω = 1.00, S=1.00; (b) P2: Ω = 0.67, S=0.44; (c) P3: Ω = 0.50, S=0.25; (d) P4: Ω = 0.40, S=0.16; (e) P5: Ω = 0.33, S=0.11.
Fig 3.
The normal force between two particles with De = 6.30 mm for different aspect ratios and sphericities: (a) hertz normal contact force; (b) normal viscous contact force.
Fig 4.
The normal force between two particles with different equivalent diameters for P3: (a) hertznormal contact force; (b) normal viscous contact force.
Fig 5.
The tangential force between two particles with different aspect ratios and sphericities for De = 6.30 mm: (a) elastic tangential contact force; (b) viscous tangential contact force.
Fig 6.
The tangential force between two particles with different equivalent diameters for P3: (a) elastic tangential contact force; (b) viscous tangential contact force.
Fig 7.
Numerical samples composed of elongated ellipsoids before and after triaxial compression.
(a) Samples with different particle morphologies (Shape1-Shape5); (b) Samples with different particle sizes (Size1-Size5).
Fig 8.
Deviatoric stress-strain curves of numerical samples composed of elongated ellipsoids with different particle morphologies and particle sizes.
(a) different particle morphologies; (b) different particle sizes.
Fig 9.
The force chain distributions of different numerical samples composed of elongated ellipsoids with different particle morphologies and particle sizes before shearing and after loading.
(a) different particle morphologies; (b) different particle sizes.
Fig 10.
The CDF of normal and tangential contact forces in numerical specimens after compression considering different particle morphologies: (a) normal contact force; (b) tangential contact force; and different particle sizes: (c) normal contact force; (d) tangential contact force.
Fig 11.
Average contact force and percentage of strong contact force under different conditions: (a) different particle shapes, (b) different particle sizes.
Fig 12.
Fabric anisotropy evolution of numerical samples with different shapes and sizes.
Table 2.
Critical state parameters obtained from DEM simulations.
Fig 13.
Different contact patterns for two ellipsoids.
Table 3.
Stress concentration factor value in the numerical samples with different shapes and sizes.
Table 4.
Comparative analysis of the proposed modified contact model against previous approaches.